Canadian Heritage Committee on June 7th, 2021

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Chair, my hand is up.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Champoux.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I'm letting you know my hand is up.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Yes.

I have Mr. Rayes. I believe your hand was left up from last time.

I have Ms. Dabrusin, and then I'm going to go to Mr. Champoux.

Ms. Dabrusin, you have the floor.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Thank you.

I agree with Ms. McPherson that extra time would have helped, certainly at the beginning, to try to move this forward. In fact, several times at the beginning of the study of Bill C-10, I tried to get extra time for extra meetings so that we could move through this quickly.

We have now reached a point where, in the last meeting, we did not vote on a single amendment. Adding extra meetings during the summer isn't going to help us get to where we need to be because at this point, we have just reached a standstill. Quite frankly, Ms. McPherson is well aware that there is a motion for time allocation and I would hope she would support that so that we can put this important bill forward and make sure that we are doing what we need to have web giants pay their fair share and to support Canadian artists.

I would point out that the Conservatives have been filibustering here at committee, as is their right to do by parliamentary procedure, the same as it is our right to bring forward a motion for time allocation.

I would like to point out to Ms. McPherson that I think it's been laid bare at this point, when I am looking at statements that have been made by the Conservatives, that the issue here isn't about freedom of expression that they are really pushing for. In fact, I would just point out what Ms. Harder stated to her local press about Bill C-10 specifically, and what is trying to be done. The quote I have is:

These artists are not able to make a living off of what they are producing, so they require grants that are given to them by the government. And so these little, niche lobby groups composed of outdated artists are going to the Liberal government and asking them to charge these large streaming companies in order to bring about more money to put into these grant funds so these outdated artists can then apply for that money so they can continue to create material Canadians don’t want to watch.

That's the fight we're in about Bill C-10 right now. That is saying that artists like the Arkells or shows like Heartland are not things that Canadian want to watch, and that we shouldn't be supporting, as a government. I don't believe that's true.

My question for Ms. McPherson is, is she going to support time allocation so that we can move forward to support artists, or is she going to take the position that these are outdated artists whom we don't need to be providing support for?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I have Ms. McPherson in the lineup for talking in just a few moments, but I'm going to Mr. Champoux, first, and then Mr. Rayes.

Mr. Champoux.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I support and applaud what my fellow member Ms. Dabrusin just said in relation to the Conservative member's recent comments in the Lethbridge Herald about her party's position on the situation of artists. Frankly, I was very concerned by the party's view of the cultural sector as well as its read on Bill C‑10, which I think is completely wrong. No doubt, we'll have a chance to revisit the matter later.

I want to speak to Ms. McPherson's motion. As everyone knows, the party leaders are in the midst of negotiating next steps regarding a summer schedule. The committee can't decide to sit in hybrid format until the powers that be have come to an agreement.

In light of that, I think we would do well to propose an amendment to Ms. McPherson's motion, specifying that the motion is conditional on the outcome of the discussions between the party leaders.

I am not suggesting Ms. McPherson's motion has no merit, but I do think we should take into account the talks under way, which will certainly override some of the committee's decisions.

I therefore move that the motion be amended by adding wording to the effect that it is conditional on the outcome of the discussions between the party leaders.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Champoux, your subamendment, where do you propose to put that within the motion itself, at the very end?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Yes, precisely.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Does everyone have an understanding of what was just talked about?

After Mr. Rayes, I'm going to come back to our clerk to read out again the amendment to the motion.

Mr. Rayes.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I wanted to comment on Ms. McPherson's motion, but now that an amendment has been proposed, do I have to speak to the amendment and wait until that discussion is over before I can have the floor to comment on Ms. McPherson's motion?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Yes, I'd prefer, sir, if you focused on the amendment that's been put forward. Then we can get back to the main motion, whether it's been amended or not.

Mr. Rayes, you have the floor.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

That's fine.

Ms. McPherson, I think what you're trying to do is very noble. We, on our side, have no problem continuing the discussion on Bill C‑10. As we have repeatedly pointed out, the bill has numerous flaws. It's a complex piece of legislation that was poorly thought‑out from the get‑go; it has undergone all kinds of amendments, with more on the way—very significant ones, I might add. I do not see how we can pass this bill without having had the time to take a comprehensive look at it.

Ms. Dabrusin said it was a bit late. Personally, I find it a bit early since we are expecting a time allocation motion to be put forward today. That would bring the committee's work to an end. With a time allocation motion, the Liberals are choosing to put an end to the work before the committee, even though we are constantly told that committees are independent.

I don't necessarily want to propose an amendment to your motion, Ms. McPherson, but I do have something to suggest, ever so politely, of course. Should we not put off consideration of your motion until Friday, to see whether the Liberals follow through on their ultimatum and move a time allocation motion? If they do, it will render your motion unnecessary. If they do not, your motion will be entirely appropriate.

That is my humble suggestion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

For the sake of people watching, there is no motion of time allocation here at committee. What my colleagues are talking about is a possible time allocation in the House. I wanted to make that clarification for those who are watching us from afar.

Madam Clerk, let's clear up some of the wording around the amendment that Mr. Champoux proposed.

Mr. Champoux, we may call on you in just a second.

Go ahead, Madam Clerk.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Aimée Belmore]

Thank you, sir.

Mr. Champoux, would you mind repeating your amendment, please?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I am proposing that Ms. McPherson's motion be amended at the end to specify the motion is conditional on the outcome of the talks between the party leaders.

I don't know what the exact wording should be. Perhaps one of the legislative clerks could help with that. I am no expert on legislative wording, but I would just say something to the effect of “all conditional on the outcome of the party leaders' discussions”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you.

We'll work on some of that for now and try to get the right wording. In the meantime, I see there are enough people who want to talk about it. I don't want to stymie the debate right now. I want to go to Ms. McPherson, and then I'll go to Ms. Dabrusin.

Mr. Rayes, I see your hand is up. Is that from last time? I don't want to miss you.

Okay. Perfect.

We have Ms. McPherson and then Ms. Dabrusin.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Chair, I have a few things.

First of all, in terms of Mr. Champoux's amendment to the motion, I had suggested that we could go forward in an in-person format. I recognize that the House leaders—I am a deputy House leader myself—are discussing what the hybrid will look like into the summer months. I was not proposing that we use the hybrid system but rather come to Ottawa, travel to Ottawa, for the meetings. We could probably have longer meetings and get a little bit more done.

In terms of the questions put forward both by Mr. Rayes and Ms. Dabrusin, I very much feel that we are now in a situation where the Liberals have put forward a flawed bill. We are trying to fix that bill. We are trying to be propositional and we are trying to fix that bill. The Liberals have now put forward in the House, not in committee, a time allocation of five hours. That is wholly insufficient to get through the remaining amendments that need to be examined so that we make sure that we have good legislation. That's wholly insufficient. Such a heavy-handed manoeuvre hasn't been done for decades. It has not been done for decades. The last time it was done, there were 10 hours allocated, twice as long.

I have some real concerns about being told by Ms. Dabrusin that I am choosing to either support the Liberals' very heavy-handed move through time allocation or abandon it and support the very disturbing and very wrong-headed comments of my colleague from Lethbridge. I feel like we're in a situation where the flawed legislation that was brought forward by this government needs to get fixed, and the Conservatives are making it impossible for us to fix that legislation.

I'm incredibly frustrated by both the Liberals and the Conservatives on their inability to see that we have a job to do, that we have an obligation to work as hard as we can—

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Ms. McPherson, I apologize for interrupting.

I just want to point out to everyone that we're still on the amendment that Mr. Champoux put forward before we get into the main motion. I respect the fact that—

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Chair, I was just responding to some of the questions that were brought forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I understand that, but when we get back to the main motion we can do that.

Now, keep in mind that I'm pretty flexible over the arc of conversation that we have here. If you want to start out with the amendment, leading into the overall motion, I'm all for that. However, I have to watch this accordingly, because I know that some people get upset if I don't.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I'll come back to the amendment. I just have one more comment that I would like to make while I have the floor.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

You still have the floor. I just wanted to point that out.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Chair, knowing that we do need to get this legislation fixed, and we still have 30-plus amendments to go through at this point, I would suggest that maybe we take a bit of advice from Mr. Rayes and consider how well the committee is able to get through our work today and then go forward.

The other thing I was thinking, too, is that if we did have this motion in place, if we did agree to sit during the summer, there would be no need to being in time allocation. The Liberals would not need to bring that forward, because we would already have agreed that we would continue to work effectively as a committee, as the people of Canada tasked us to do, to get this legislation right.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Ms. Dabrusin.