Debates of Feb. 5th, 2021

Broadcasting Act

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned the layoffs we have seen over the past few weeks.

In my riding of Victoria, we have seen Bell Media laying off staff at Bell-owned stations, like CFAX, CTV News Vancouver Island.

Bell received $122 million in pandemic relief-related subsidies and has paid out increased dividends to their shareholders, and then it turned around this week and laid off hard-working news staff. Bell received taxpayer support, paid out their shareholders and laid off staff. It seems like the government is willing to give big breaks to corporations at the expense of everyday Canadians.

Could the member speak about the need for accountability for the government, accountability for corporations, and the impact on our media and Canadians?

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, absolutely. That is one of the biggest things we need: accountability from both sides, including accountability from the government on how it is spending its money.

Wise spending is what we need, and the government has been lacking in that regard, especially over the last five years and specifically in this last year of the pandemic.

[Nelly Shin, Conservative, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, in my past life before politics, I was an independent recording artist. I was inspired by the music of Dan Hill, Anne Murray, David Foster, Céline Dion and Shania Twain. I discovered them on radio and television. I do not think it is a coincidence that most of my favourite musicians are Canadian; we have a lot of talent here, but the stars whom I mentioned found their big break in the U.S. instead of Canada. I shared this story because I want to affirm the symbiosis of Canadian content creators and Canadian broadcasters in the lives of Canadians and the value of protecting these institutions to allow Canada's cultural and artistic identity to thrive.

Bill C-10 is important in spirit because it seeks to modernize a 28-year-old law that does not take into account diversified broadcasting platforms with the arrival of the digital world, including Internet, social media and streaming. It is critical to acknowledge the reality of new and growing digital platforms and the implications of a global market and of foreign players entering our system, and we must do so with consideration for the long-term sustainability of Canadian content and Canadian broadcasting platforms. This requires adapting the CRTC's mandates to maximize the success of Canadian entities in the broadcasting ecosystem for the furtherance of Canada's heritage and economic prosperity.

We cannot ignore the impact of the broadcasting, film and music sectors on the Canadian economy. Based on a November 2020 report on Canadian Heritage's website, the GDP impact of broadcasting was $9.1 billion, with $16.9 billion in revenues and 41,901 jobs; the GDP impact of film and video was $4.3 billion, with $13.39 billion in revenues and 71,027 jobs; and the GDP impact of music and sound recording was $637 million, with $577 million in revenues and 8,986 jobs.

The trend is also clear. Over the last 10 years, Canadians have increasingly moved toward Internet streaming services for programs, while moving away from paid-subscription TV. These are both viable avenues for viewers today. The implications of these trends plead for a modernized Broadcasting Act. That is the intent of Bill C-10, but I am not fully convinced that the proposed amendments would accomplish what the bill purports to do. I hope to address these issues today.

Canadian content producers and broadcasters have a vital role in the production of quality Canadian drama, reality shows and news. Property Brothers, Schitt's Creek, Kim's Convenience and Wall of Chefs are top-notch Canadian shows that have garnered global attention. We are living in an exciting time for Canadian content, but content requires funding.

Canadian content creators have expressed concern that the proposed amendment to paragraph 3(1)(f) of the Broadcasting Act reflects a weakening of the crucial position of Canadian creative resources in the act. As the act currently stands without amendments, it does so under the assumption of a closed system wherein Canadian controlled and owned broadcasters hold a monopoly. Paragraph 3(1)(f) currently reads:

(f) each broadcasting undertaking shall make maximum use, and in no case less than predominant use, of Canadian creative and other resources in the creation and presentation of programming,

Bill C-10 excludes the phrase “maximum use, and in no case less than predominant” and other conditions. The amendment reads:

(f) each broadcasting undertaking shall make use of Canadian creative and other resources in the creation and presentation of programming to the extent that is appropriate for the nature of the undertaking;

Canadian content creators are concerned that this amendment would diminish the critical position of Canadian creators in the Broadcasting Act. My concern about proposed amendment to paragraph 3(1)(f) is its overall lack of clarity and accountability on the role of all broadcasters, whether traditional or modern, in contributing to the creation and presentation of Canadian content. I agree with Canadian creators that the amendment would undermine the value of Canadian content in the Broadcasting Act. In a time when Canadian stories are beginning to find larger audiences and are defining our artistic identity, the amendment to paragraph 3(1)(f) is a little disappointing.

I would like to add that the lack of copyright and intellectual property safeguards in the amendments in the midst of the current international environment does not reflect modernization. Writers, composers, publishers and other copyright holders depend on royalties for their livelihoods. It is already difficult for Canadians with artistic vocations to make ends meet. Many domestic talents move to the U.S., Europe or Asia to find a viable path. The lack of intellectual property protection in the growing and complex digital world and globalized markets is unacceptable in this age. The Broadcasting Act needs to include a modernized copyright law. If Canada does not work toward optimizing the environment for creators to thrive, our cultural identity suffers. Canadian content is not just a means to help Canadian works to reach audiences; Canadian content should be protected and supported to help our arts and culture sectors help establish our heritage and Canadian identity.

Bill C-10 is important in spirit because it seeks to safeguard equitable programming. Bill C-10 amends the Broadcasting Act to, among other things, update the Canadian broadcasting policies set out in sections throughout the act by providing, among other things, that the Canadian broadcasting system should provide opportunities for aboriginal peoples to provide programming in aboriginal languages that reflect aboriginal cultures, and to provide programming that is accessible to persons with disabilities and free of barriers while serving the needs and the interests of Canadians, including Canadians from racialized communities and ethno culturally diverse backgrounds.

The bill amends the CRTC's mandate to require more content in aboriginal, disabled, racialized and LGBTQ2 people. However, the bill does not address any guidelines to regulate French content. There is no provision of a benchmark to legislate the percentage of French language content. Equitable programming needs to also modernize the Broadcasting Act to ensure that French and Quebec culture content are given adequate opportunities to thrive.

Broadcasters are critical to fostering Canadian identity in the role they have with Canadian content. Whether they deliver Canadian news, reality shows and drama, or contribute to the Canada Media Fund to produce Canadian content, they are critical to our cultural identity, everyday life and our economy. However, in the current Broadcasting Act there are obligations and content regulations that mean well to safeguard Canadian content creators, but inadvertently put them at risk of losing in their competition with foreign digital players who have access to Canadian consumers with little regulation at this time. If Canadian broadcasters fall down, then their support for Canadian content also falters.

The broadcasting system is a delicate realm that requires a delicate balance for all to thrive. Providing an even playing field with foreign Internet broadcasters like Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, Disney, Apple TV+ will certainly help alleviate the unfair competition. Foreign companies should also contribute to Canadian content, but with that should also come the right balance of regulations so that all players, domestic and foreign, can flourish. If they thrive, their investment in Canadian content creation and presentation will inadvertently benefit the fostering of Canada's cultural identity and economy.

In an age when many entities are competing for audiences in the digital world, Canadian news broadcasters are suffering from the added drop in ad sales caused by the economic downturn from COVID-19. A fair and modernized Broadcasting Act would benefit Canada's broadcasting sector. However, Bill C-10 is too vague and does not ensure that web giants like Google and Facebook are obligated to compete under the same rules as Canadian companies. That does not explain how digital platforms and conventional players will compete on an even playing field. It does not explain the guidelines that will be put in place for the production of Canadian content and contributions to the Canada Media Fund.

It would be incumbent on the CRTC to enforce regulations to reflect a modernized act. However, the role of the CRTC is vague. The lack of clarity raises concerns for all stakeholders as to how the CRTC will interpret its role. Will the CRTC over-regulate and stifle Canadian broadcasters among foreign digital counterparts? Will it over-regulate foreign players and shut them out of the system and thereby lessen opportunities for the relaying of Canadian content?

Based on the way the bill is written, it feels like the Liberal government is passing the buck to the CRTC for all decisions. They will then need at least nine months to undertake the first regulatory phase. In this COVID environment we need broadcasters and Canadian creators to have an assurance that they will survive and hope to thrive among international players.

I would like to refer to a conversation I had with one of my constituents, Rob, who owns Gearforce, a pro audio company that supports live concerts. He said that many of his technician friends in the entertainment industry are struggling not only because they are financially hurting because of shutdowns, but also because they are not putting their skills to work. They are afraid they will lose all of the skills they honed over their lifetime. There is a certain standard of excellence that circulates in the arts and culture sector, whether among writers, composers, artists, artisans or technical workers, who have had to work hard to get where they are in a sector where opportunities are very competitive.

A Broadcasting Act that is modernized with the right amendments is a small step forward to helping Canadian arts and culture sector workers and artists find their place in life. However, an ambiguous bill can be more damaging because of potential misinterpretations. If Bill C-10 passes second reading, I hope there will be fulsome discussions at committee to amend the bill.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, I think that the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam and I agree on many things.

Regarding the importance of the sector in Canada, just one measure that we have announced in the context of COVID is an insurance backstop that will help to create 60,000 jobs. For every dollar the federal government is investing in that measure, the private sector will put in $10.

Would the interests of the people we are trying to serve be better served if we were having these conversations at committee to try to improve the bill, which I have said from the beginning could be improved, rather than in this context where people are just talking? We can ask a question, but we are not actually working on the bill.

[Nelly Shin, Conservative, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I really miss being on the minister's committee.

I agree that we see eye to eye on a lot of things, and I am not averse to the idea of the bill going to committee. My desire is to see a fulsome discussion to make sure the ambiguities that have been expressed by many members will be addressed. The bill should bring us all toward a very balanced ecosystem in this sector and not leave any glitches that will undermine the role of any one of the players.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague talked a lot about artists, whose activities are often covered by the local media in our respective ridings.

These artists have not received adequate support during the pandemic. While the Quebec government understood the importance of the local press and was investing in traditional and community media to get its messages across, the federal government was supporting the Facebooks, Amazons and other web giants of the world by investing in online advertising rather than investing in our traditional media.

This was confirmed by local media outlets back home in Shefford during a meeting I had during the pandemic with my colleague, the member for Drummond. What does my colleague think of the importance of leading by example and reinvesting the money intended for web giants, for example by creating a fund for local media, local press and community media?

[Nelly Shin, Conservative, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I fully agree that local media is very important, especially at a time like this, for ensuring that details only local media can produce are accessible. That is part of my concern. If the bill does go to committee, there should be accountability and regulations for web giants so that we can provide the tools for our sector to flourish and not just give a free ride to web giants.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have been trying to follow this debate closely and it seems there is broad agreement that amendments to our Broadcasting Act are necessary after such a long period of time and that a level playing field should be created so that web giants like Netflix are not exerting undue influence and monopolizing our media and cultural markets. It seems like there is a lack of clarity.

The member used the word “ambiguous” and noted that perhaps too much discretion is placed with the CRTC. The previous speaker felt that the current definition of “Canadian content” was overly restrictive.

I am wondering if the member could expand on what specific amendments she would like to see if the bill makes it to committee.

[Nelly Shin, Conservative, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, what I would like to see overall is a balance. Again, because of the ambiguity and what is presented, there could be better clauses to work with. In the big picture, I would like to see more balance and that no one is left out of how the Broadcasting Act moves forward.

[Chris d'Entremont, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise virtually today to speak to Bill C-10.

Like many of my colleagues, I appreciate this opportunity to speak to this bill. I am an Acadian, and this bill will have a profound effect on the survival of our wonderful Acadian culture and community, which is very important to me. It deserves being promoted and protected.

Digital media is bigger than ever, and the 28-year-old Broadcasting Act is in urgent need of modernization to address the evolution of the Internet and the overwhelming emergence of social networks and online services like Facebook, Google, Netflix, Crave and Spotify, among others.

Modernizing the act does not necessarily mean erasing the past, forgetting how it has shaped our history to this day or failing to take it into account in the future. We need to ensure the continuity of our past and our Acadian culture and preserve them for always.

In its brief to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission during the CBC/Radio-Canada licence renewal process, the Société nationale de l'Acadie, the SNA, noted that it has had to intervene repeatedly to get Radio-Canada to support Acadian culture and to remind the broadcaster about the obligations in its mandate.

As a proud Acadian, and on behalf of all Acadians, I want to point out that all Acadians, just like all Canadians, help fund CBC/Radio-Canada. That funding, together with the broadcaster's mandate, are all that guarantee these services, which must be not only preserved at all costs but also respected. To make that happen, we need effective enforcement measures to be very clearly indicated in Bill C-10, which is not the case.

The SNA is the official representative of all Acadian people. It promotes the rights and interests of Atlantic Acadians. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the SNA for its hard work and its efforts to preserve our magnificent Acadian culture.

The bill seeks to amend the Broadcasting Act in several ways, such as by adding websites that broadcast or rebroadcast programs as a separate category of broadcasting undertaking. It also seeks to update Canada's broadcasting policy set out in section 3 to, for example, provide indigenous-language programming for indigenous people that reflects their culture.

I believe that Bill C-10 needs to go even further to ensure the presence and preservation of certain cultures, such as Acadian culture. I absolutely agree that the act needs to be modernized, just as the Official Languages Act needs to be modernized. On this side of the House, we want to be able to vote on a bill that will be fair for Canadian producers and broadcasters.

For several years now, Canadians have been expressing concerns about how unfair it is that Netflix does not pay any taxes in Canada. The goal is to find a balance between conventional media and digital media, as well as with content.

I completely agree with that goal. The francophone population of Nova Scotia, which listens to the Radio-Canada station out of Halifax, is upset about the fact that they hear more updates on traffic jams in Montreal and on the Samuel de Champlain Bridge than they do content from Nova Scotia artists.

It is important to point out that the case of the Atlantic provinces is unique. There is only one television production centre, supported by three radio production centres, to serve the four provinces. We want more local content to reflect the unique nature of Acadia and to promote and protect Acadian culture.

Unfortunately, when the CBC does not keep its commitments, even when complaints are filed with the CRTC, it is generally not penalized because it is not subject to the same rules as other Canadian broadcasters.

In 2021, it is unacceptable that this exemption still exists. It needs to be removed through Bill C-10. It is vital that the percentage of Canadian content is respected to the letter and that each region of Canada can enforce its local cultural content quotas.

The Conservatives want an equitable regulatory framework for digital media and conventional broadcasters. My Conservative colleagues and I will only be able to support the modernization of the Broadcasting Act if it includes additional, clear, non-negotiable francophone content requirements.

During the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's licence renewal process, the Fédération acadienne de la Nouvelle-Écosse noted in its brief presented on January 13 to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission that Acadians in Nova Scotia did not get access to a French-language elementary school education until 1981. It took a legal battle that went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada for them to finally, in 2003, get access to a French-language education in a system of homogenous secondary schools. Without that education in French, Acadians in Nova Scotia became assimilated at an alarming rate. Between 1981 and 1996, the number of French-speaking Acadians in Nova Scotia went from 80,000 to 42,000,

In the spring and fall of 2019, the Fédération acadienne de la Nouvelle-Écosse consulted extensively throughout the province on linguistic insecurity. Participants all reported experiencing language insecurity, discomfort or reluctance to express themselves in French, or even a feeling of inadequacy in French. I am quite saddened by these results. The lack of familiarity on the part of the broader Canadian public when it comes to Nova Scotia's Acadian community contributes to this linguistic insecurity.

Local content must be created so people can see themselves reflected in the media. The one and only measure to improve the place of French is to replace the reference in section 3 that weakens it further. This step backwards is completely unacceptable. It represents a much more vague and, more importantly, a much weaker approach than the act provides for indigenous content, for example.

This is another example of the Liberal government's contradictions. The government is further weakening an essential piece of legislation that is already weak, while making francophone communities across Canada believe that it will introduce a bill to modernize the Official Languages Act, which would focus on the promotion and protection of the French language for all minority francophone communities. That is nonsense.

In light of all these points, there is no way I can vote in favour of this bill without a firm commitment from the government to thoroughly review all the amendments needed to improve it in order to ensure that Acadian and francophone Canadian content has the kind of future it deserves.

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

Madam Speaker, we have been debating the bill for four days and it is very clear that most Conservatives are opposed to it. They have made that clear. However, it does not seem to be something people are fighting tooth and nail over.

I am just curious why the Conservatives will not let the bill come to a vote so we can either see it collapse or get it to committee to continue to work on the stuff that the member and other Conservatives have been talking about. Why are the Conservatives holding it up?

[Chris d'Entremont, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, quite honestly, we need an indication from the government that changes can be made to the bill. As I said in my remarks, there needs to be a representation of francophone communities outside of Quebec, especially Acadian representation. We need to have a better idea of how the CRTC will work with or charge the CBC to provide the services needed for our community. As I said, in 1981, 80,000 Acadians said they spoke French, which was down to 42,000 in 1996. It is unacceptable, and the CBC and CRTC have a lot to do with this.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, would the member explore the question of what constitutes a broadcaster? A major concern for me is what would be defined as a broadcaster, who is in, who is out, and how these regulations could be applied to relatively small operators. If people start their own YouTube channels and get a large number of subscribers, do they become subject to all kinds of regulations around, for instance, diversity and content, which may be beyond their scope to be aware of or include?

These subjective determinations are ultimately out of our hands as legislators. Does the member have concerns about that on which he would like to elaborate?

[Chris d'Entremont, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, ultimately, there has to be some clear definition on what these would constitute. When we look at the small community radio stations, and in our particular case in Nova Scotia, there are only a few Francophone radio stations beyond the CBC, they can be in direct conflict or in competition with some of these smaller groups that have no regulations at all. They can say and do anything they want. We want to ensure we keep those small community radio stations available and not have them in competition with these smaller groups.

However, what does it constitute, what does it mean? I hope the minister will clarify some of those things.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from West Nova for his speech.

I wonder if he could expand on the importance of French-language content, especially on platforms like Netflix. Does he have any suggestions for ways to increase it? Should quotas be imposed, or should we use a carrot rather than a stick and create financial incentives? Should the measures be more coercive or more incentive-based?

[Chris d'Entremont, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her question.

We really want to encourage this with a positive approach. There is not much francophone or Acadian content. We really need to see Acadians, francophones and indigenous people not only on our social media, but also in our traditional media, such as CBC and others. I believe that it is possible to find ways to get these media to agree to come to the regions.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak to Bill C-10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.

This has to be one of the most enjoyable debates I have had the opportunity to participate in this chamber. With such a vast and diverse country like ours, it is interesting to see the different local content from the far corners of our country.

This is near and dear to my heart, not just because of the content on the screen but because of the experiences of the persons who are involved in creating the content. That includes the background extras.

I had the very good fortune of being a background extra in several productions in my hometown in Regina, in the surrounding area. It all came about by chance, but it really did open my eyes to the so-called gig economy that has been in the news much more lately during the pandemic.

I was walking through the mall one day in Regina and I saw a guy, who has since become a good friend of mine, sitting at a table and a sign that said, “Sign up here to be in TV shows”. I asked him what it was all about. He was the casting director for a local company called Partners in Motion, which makes movies and TV shows in Regina and in southern Saskatchewan. He told me that I looked like a police officer and he had a spot for me in the documentary series called Crime Stories. They needed background extras to re-enact these crimes and they could cast me in the role of a police officer to arrest some criminal for the documentary series. It sounded like fun and a good way to make minimum wage on the side, so that is what I did. It really opened my eyes to how many people in my community had hobbies or gig jobs being background extras in TV shows.

Over the course of the following months and years, I arrested many different people in that crime series. I got to be a soldier in war. In a particularly memorable experience, I got to be a background extra in Corner Gas: The Movie. People tend to talk about Corner Gas, the TV show, but there was a major motion picture a few years ago, based on all the characters in Dog River, Corner Gas. It was certainly very memorable to walk up and down Main Street in Rouleau, Saskatchewan. I played towns person number seven in that movie. Much to my dismay, I was not nominated for an Oscar that year, but in the sequel perhaps my name will come up.

I have not seen anything in the bill to address the gig economy and people who work in the industry on a casual basis. I strongly suspect that this is something not specific to Regina, Saskatchewan, but specific to people who work in the industry all across our great country.

I think we could do Canadians a lot of good by withdrawing this bill and rewriting it from scratch to ensure that everyone is included in it and to ensure we have the best legislation we can for Canadians.

Therefore, I would like to move the following amendment. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That'"and substituting the following: “Bill C-10, An act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, be not now read a second time but that the order be discharged, the bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.”

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The amendment is in order.

Questions and comments.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I am a little disappointed. I know the minister went to great effort to ensure there was a great deal of consultation. We are in a process of modernizing something, and it really does need to be looked at. Why would he want move an amendment of this nature, given the importance of the industry?

He even talked about the importance of the industry. There is absolutely nothing wrong with finishing the debate. Once that debate has come to an end, it goes to committee. Members would be able to present amendments if they felt it was necessary. Even the minister has indicated his willingness to receive amendments.

Why would the member not follow that course?

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, I have particular concerns about the delegation of authority to the CRTC and the lack of accountability in not just the CRTC, but in other arm's-length government agencies.

As the hon. member may be aware, I currently serve on the transportation committee. We have been having a considerable amount of difficulty with Nav Canada with respect to the closure of air traffic control towers. Although it is an agency created by an act of Parliament, there seems to be a serious lack of accountability for this government agency. I do not want to see the same situation transpire with the CRTC, so the best thing to do is to proceed with the amendment that I tabled a minute ago.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I too have a question for my colleague.

Generally speaking, when looking at the parliamentary schedule, the parties agree to the number of speakers they wish to work on a bill before it is referred to committee. I gather that these discussions took place with respect to Bill C-10 in order to advance it so that it could be studied, or not, depending on the decision made by the House. My colleague's approach intrigues me somewhat, given that parliamentarians usually agree amongst themselves on this schedule and the approach to be taken for bills.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for this question.

The most important thing is to have the best bill for Canadians. As I stated a few minutes ago, I believe that we should start over with this bill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If you deemed the amendment is fact in order, I would be prepared to speak to it. Therefore, I would rather you not call for the vote.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

We are pursuing the debate. We are going to continue with speeches. There will be no call for votes on the amendment.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

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

Madam Speaker, we should be clear about what is going on here.

The Conservatives are introducing this amendment, which they know will not get through, so they can reset the entire speaking roster and can continue to drag this debate on and on. We are already at day four of this. The Conservatives do not want to see this go to committee. They do not want anything to happen on this. It is very clear that the member has introduced this strictly for the purpose of dragging this on longer and longer. At least he can just stand up and admit that.

He did not answer the parliamentary secretary's question when he specifically said that if the member was so passionate about this, why would he not let it go to committee rather than try to kill it on the floor right now.