House of Commons Hansard #117 of the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was content.

Topics

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting ActGovernment Orders

10:50 p.m.

NDP

Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB

Mr. Speaker, I have been in the House for some time listening to the debate tonight, so it is an honour to finally stand and speak.

This past year, we have seen the very best and the very worst of government in our system of democracy. When all parties were working together as the committee of the whole to address the COVID-19 crisis, we saw how well the government could work together. I am going to talk about some of the ways it worked well before I get negative and talk about the ways it has not been working.

I want to make it clear it is not that all opposition party members supported everything the government did during the COVID period. I, for one, have stood in this House many times repeatedly challenging the government to do better, particularly when it came to protecting Canadians from COVID-19 and all of the detritus that came with it. I stood in the House to make sure there were public health rules in place, that there was sick leave, that Canadians could stay home if they needed to, that there were things in place to help fight the virus in Canada and around the world without having to choose between their own well-being and the health of others. I will keep doing that. I will keep standing in this House of Commons as an opposition member to urge the government to do a better job taking care of Canadians. I will stand in this House and get it to close loopholes in its legislation.

There is a company in my riding, Cessco Fabrication. I have brought up probably a dozen times in the House that the government's wage subsidy program is being used to pay for scab labour so that this company does not have to negotiate with its workers. I have brought it up time and time again, and I will continue to do that.

It is really important that I push for students, seniors and people with living with disabilities.

One thing members have heard me say so many times is that if we do not vaccinate people around the world, none of us is safe, and that I am disappointed in the government's response to that.

The government itself adopted many of the opposition solutions that were offered. The government did bring forward the 75% wage support, the CERB was $2,000 a month and there was limited support for students and paid sick leave. This is how the government should work. The government should propose and opposition members should make it better. I am proud, as a new parliamentarian, that I was able to do that. I am honoured to have been part of that effort.

However, this has not been the case with Bill C-10. In fact, the entire process, including the debate this evening, is an example of the worst forms of democracy and government. It started with an extremely flawed bill that the minister himself could not explain. When the bill was tabled in November, it was immediately apparent to everyone, the government included, that it was a flawed piece of legislation. The Yale commission clearly identified Canadians' concerns with how web giants were dominating our broadcasting and culture, but were excluded from the current Broadcasting Act and, thus not subject to oversight, not held to the same standards as Canadian companies and, worse yet, not contributing taxes or funds to the Media Fund. The bill, as it was tabled, ignored all of those issues and I stood with my colleagues in the NDP and said on the day that bill was tabled that this was going to be problem and we needed to fix this.

Facebook, YouTube, companies that make billions of dollars in revenue from Canadians and Canadian content were excluded from the bill. For anyone who was worried about what that proposed section 4.1 was, it was excluding social media. It was letting Facebook and YouTube off the hook. It was saying that they could use Canadian content and they did not have to pay for it. It was selling out our cultural sector. We needed to fix that legislation.

I was worried because we know that Facebook has lobbied the minister and the department over 100 times. Their incessant lobbying seemed to pay off. Representatives met over and over again and then, all of a sudden, they were not in the bill. The minister floundered in responses to questions about the bill and the lobbying. He was unable to answer questions about his own bill to Canadians, unable to answer questions about its application in committee and unable to defend its rationale from critics.

The result was a committee review process that at the very best of times was disorganized and at the worst was completely dysfunctional. I know that because I was there. I was on that committee.

Immediately, 121 amendments to the bill were filed. The minister has said that perhaps this is a normal number of amendments for a bill of such of complexity and the breadth and depth of this legislation means it is not surprising, but what was surprising was the number of government amendments filed. The government knew this legislation was flawed, so it was a clear indication the bill was not ready when it was tabled and that the minister was not ready to endorse and oversee it.

Still, and this is the most important point, Canadians need a broadcasting act. We have heard it time and time again in this House from everybody but the Conservative Party. We have a 30-year-old Broadcasting Act. It is well overdue for us to have legislation in this country that will fix the holes in the Broadcasting Act. Canada desperately needs an updated Broadcasting Act.

Canadian broadcasters, media companies, producers, filmmakers, writers and artists all need an updated Broadcasting Act. Canadians who value Canadian news and Canadian content need and want a broadcasting act as well. It was absolutely vital that we roll up our sleeves in committee and we fix this bill to create a broadcasting act that would work for Canadians. It was an excruciating process, because instead of working with my colleagues, many of whom I admire and who worked very hard in this committee, politics kept getting in the way.

Again, this is what I mean when I say the worst of government and democracy. The Conservatives saw a weak minister with a flawed bill, and rather than roll up their sleeves and do the work that needed to be done so we could fix this legislation, they smelled blood in the water and attacked. They took advantage of the committee process and the flaws in the bill to spread disinformation about the bill far and wide, and then they filibustered the committee so we could not even get to the amendments that would fix it. We could not even fix the things they raised as concerns because they would not stop filibustering the committee to allow us to do that.

All across Canada we were hearing the most outrageous accusations about the bill. I had one constituent tell me he had read that individual Canadians' tweets would not post until they had been reviewed for Canadian content by the CRTC. The things that were being told to Canadians by the Conservatives were absolutely outrageous.

I listened to the member for Lethbridge yell “freedom” so many times that I was in a panel with her and I thought maybe I was on a panel with Braveheart. All this did was waste time and confuse Canadians, and with a minister who could not adequately explain his bill, the disinformation campaign found oxygen it never should have had.

It brought us here to this evening to the last-second attempt to rush this bill through before the session ends. The government had six years to update the Broadcasting Act, and in the end, it served up a flawed bill that took so much work for us to fix.

As a member of the heritage committee, I worked very hard with my fellow members to close the Liberal loopholes and fix problems in the legislation. I voted in favour of a Conservative motion for a second charter review to ensure the Broadcasting Act would not infringe on personal freedoms of expression, and that review was done.

I supported a motion to force the ministers of justice and heritage to appear at committee to address concerns over freedom of expression. I proposed that the committee meet more often and for longer hours. I proposed to extend the deadline so more work could be done. I voted against closing debate and I even put forward a motion asking the committee to debate the bill through the summer months so we could get this work done. All the parties voted against that.

In the end, the Liberals closed the committee debate and we were forced to vote on amendments without even discussing them. It is not my idea of good government.

I fully welcome the attention that Bill C-10 has aroused in Canadians. The Broadcasting Act affects us all on a daily basis, and I am heartened to see so many Canadians engaged in the legislative process. It is true that many Canadians are profoundly misinformed about the bill, which is, of course, in no way their fault. I would say it falls very much on the shoulders of some of our members of Parliament who have taken great joy and have done an awful lot of fundraising off the idea, the misinformation that they are spreading and the fear that they are sowing among Canadians.

The issues addressed in Bill C-10 are complex and every country in the world is grappling with those issues right now, attempting to find a way to protect their own citizens, their own content, their own identity and their own media platforms from web giants that do not have to follow the same rules as everyone else, web giants that pull in hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue without giving anything back and companies that leave a swath of local and national media and entertainment venues languishing in their wake.

While I am dismayed by the disinformation permeating the debate on this bill, some of it coming from the web giants themselves in an attempt to resist and avoid regulation, I will vote for Bill C-10 because I worked so hard to fix this legislation. I worked so hard to make sure that people's freedom of expression was protected and that in the end web giants were held to account and that they were contributing to our broadcasting sector.

I have said it before and I will say it again: It is vital that we modernize the Broadcasting Act. The current version of the act was updated in 1991, before the Internet and before streaming services. The Broadcasting Act cannot, as it stands, address the new landscape. It cannot protect Canadians or Canadian content and it must be updated.

For me and my fellow New Democrats, the goal has always been to make sure that we had a bill that would make web giants like Facebook, YouTube and Netflix follow the same rules as Canadian companies and contribute to Canadian content just like Canadian companies are required to do. We have fought both to protect freedom of expression and to ensure that web giants are on an even playing field with Canadian companies. Canadian media and content are under extreme pressure and the web giants have a competitive advantage right now. That competitive advantage must end with this legislation.

Thanks in part to the amendments offered by all parties, Bill C-10 now would utterly protect individual rights to freedom of expression on all platforms. The CRTC powers are limited by this bill to broadcasters and the bill specifically excludes individuals from regulation. Users who upload content to social media services would not be subject to the act. In fact, the bill now contains four sections specifically exempting individuals from the act, and this bill would protect Canadian culture and heritage.

Arts and culture are at the heart of who we are. They are what make us Canadians. It is how we listen to and understand each other better. It is how we connect across the vast distances in our country and it is how we celebrate our identities. It is how we share our incredible stories with each other, in both official languages and with the entire world. We must protect our heritage and support a strong, independent arts and culture industry. Without that protection, Canadian talent will not thrive. We need Canadians to succeed on both digital and traditional platforms. Here at home and around the world, Canadian artists should be able to earn a decent living from their art, and this bill has an important role to play in making sure that the wide range of Canadian voices with stories to tell are those stories that we see on platforms.

When Bill C-10 is enacted, the next step is to increase the funding for CBC and Radio-Canada to help reverse the damage done by decades of funding cuts and unequal rules that have favoured foreign competition.

Our public broadcaster has a remarkable legacy of connecting all points of our country, and it needs a stronger future to help make sure Canadians have access to accurate, relevant information no matter where they live and no matter what language they speak.

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting ActGovernment Orders

11:05 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Mr. Speaker, listening to the member for Edmonton Strathcona this evening was like taking a deep breath of fresh air. Certainly, she hit all of the points with respect to this legislation, and I would agree that perhaps the manner in which the bill was rolled out could have been done differently. I am sure hindsight is 20/20 for everybody, and people look back and say maybe we should have done this instead of that, but really, at the end of the day I look across the aisle at the Conservatives, and I ask myself if that is what their job is. Is their job to, as she put it, smell the blood and attack for political gain?

Can she comment on whether that is what the official opposition is here to do? Are they here to look for weaknesses to exploit for political gain, or are they here to actually help craft and make the legislation better, as she was clearly trying to do in her role on the committee?

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting ActGovernment Orders

11:10 p.m.

NDP

Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB

Mr. Speaker, my thoughts on this are that, realistically, we or the government needed to bring forward legislation that would be strong so that the Conservatives would not smell that blood and would not feel like this was an awesome opportunity for them to fundraise with. One of the things I find shocking is the disinformation that we have heard from members in the House during the debate today and how few members from the Conservative Party have clearly even read the act, let alone the legislation. We are not seeing an opposition doing anything more than yelling “freedom” at the top of its lungs, without giving any ability to fix the legislation or work with us to make it happen.

To sit in a committee and be filibustered for months is maybe something that older politicians or older parliamentarians know how to do. It drives me crazy.

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting ActGovernment Orders

11:10 p.m.

Bloc

Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Edmonton Strathcona on her speech.

We have the pleasure of serving together on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. She and I have managed to move the bill forward and improve it, sometimes with opposing views, sometimes converging views, sometimes through excellent co-operation. It needed a little help to become a good bill.

Over the past few weeks, after the removal of clause 4.1, which actually had been strengthened with other provisions to ensure that social media users were protected, we have seen a slew of Conservative Party pundits suddenly take an interest in Bill C-10, although we have been working on it for months now. This is a complex bill that takes time to understand. It must be properly analyzed, and it is important to have a good grasp of the subject. Nevertheless, over the past few weeks, we have had a number of experts come to us to give their opinions and tell us that we have done our job all wrong.

I would like the member for Edmonton Strathcona to comment on this. How should we take this wave of insults from colleagues?

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting ActGovernment Orders

11:10 p.m.

NDP

Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB

Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting to me that we are told that there are experts. I have a letter here that was written by 14 lawyers who have said that Bill C-10 would do none of the things that we have been accused of doing to it. We have gone through the legislation tooth and nail, and I have a document here that outlines every single time freedom of expression is protected. I could tell members exactly where in the act and where in the bill; if they want me to name it, I can. I know that is not the case with most of the members in the House this evening, but I can certainly tell them exactly how freedom of expression is protected, and I am deeply offended that any member of this House would think that my priority would not be to ensure that Canadians' freedom of expression is protected at all cost.

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting ActGovernment Orders

11:10 p.m.

Conservative

Warren Steinley Conservative Regina—Lewvan, SK

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from my colleague for Edmonton Strathcona. I believe her heart is in the right place and I always enjoy listening to her speeches.

We are talking about the amendment. I am wondering how she felt about the amendment put forward that says to delete all words after “notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House” 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 referred back to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage....”

I believe that the member is very studious. Does she think there should be a bit more conversation around Bill C-10? I have heard a lot from constituents in Regina—Lewvan and from across not only Saskatchewan, but western Canada, who have some concerns. I believe that the member is honest and forthright and that she takes those concerns seriously.

Would it not be right to have a bit more conversation around this bill? I know my colleague for Saskatoon—Grasswood said 40% of the amendments were not even discussed at the committee. Could there be some more work for the committee to do?

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting ActGovernment Orders

11:10 p.m.

NDP

Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I would flag for the member, and I am not sure if he knows this, is that I put forward a motion in committee asking that we work through the summer so that we could get this legislation right. The members of the Conservative Party voted against that. If they had voted for that motion, we would have had the time. We would have been able to sit through the summer and look at this legislation. The fact is that the Conservatives filibustered so we could not fix the legislation, then the Conservatives did not want to waste their summer fixing the legislation afterward. In fact, it was on both sides of the equation.

I have done everything I can with members of the Bloc, members of the Liberal Party and members of the Conservative Party to fix this legislation. What have the Conservatives done?

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting ActGovernment Orders

11:15 p.m.

Green

Paul Manly Green Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her speech and for her hard work on this bill. She knows that I put a lot of time and effort into this bill as well. I would like to thank her for supporting one of my amendments, which was to level the playing field between independent producers and broadcasting undertakings. This is something that has been adopted in the U.K. and in France. It is a market-based solution to a market imbalance problem.

Why does the member think the Conservatives, who claim to be the ones who fight for the little guy against the big companies, would vote against that amendment? We did not get a chance to debate it because we spent so much time listening to filibusters for hours on end. We did not get to talk about these amendments, but this was an important amendment that I discussed with the Canadian Media Producers Association. It was very important to them to create a better balance between the large companies and the small producers. I would like her comments on that.

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting ActGovernment Orders

11:15 p.m.

NDP

Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague for the work he did on the committee. He brought forward a number of amendments. Many of them were very similar to amendments that I had brought forward. I want to thank him for the excellent work that he did.

The reason the Conservatives did not want to stand up for the little guy is because they do not care about the little guy. They never have. This has never been their priority. Their priority is to fundraise off this legislation. It was never to get good legislation that would ensure that diverse voices were heard and that diverse Canadian stories from areas outside of Toronto were heard. I want to hear stories from local media and from rural communities in Alberta. They do not care about that. That was never anything they were worried about. That was never anything they were fighting for.

I honour my colleague for the work that he did to raise that awareness, but I can tell members that was not what we saw in the committee from others.

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting ActGovernment Orders

11:15 p.m.

NDP

Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for Edmonton Strathcona for her amazing work on this bill. When I look at how the discourse around Bill C-10 has been so poisoned, I draw a parallel to the subject of climate change. We can look at Conservative discourse on climate change over the last decade. There was also a recent Angus Reid poll from April that showed only 41% of Conservative voters believed climate change was a threat compared with 90% and above for all of the other parties. The Conservative Party bears a lot of responsibility for that number because of the way it has spoken on this important subject.

Does my colleague see a parallel with the Conservative discourse on Bill C-10? The Conservatives bear responsibility for how poisoned it has become and the incredible amount of misinformation. Does my colleague see any of those parallels or have any thoughts on that particular comparison?

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting ActGovernment Orders

11:15 p.m.

NDP

Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB

Madam Speaker, that was an excellent question. My thanks to my colleague for all of the work that he has done to bring some rationality to the debate we have had in the House this evening. When we see these divisive black-and-white politics, nothing gets done. Nothing gets fixed. We do not make the best legislation that we can.

I see I am out of time. I have lots to say about this, but I am happy to chat with my colleague about that later.

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting ActGovernment Orders

June 14th, 2021 / 11:15 p.m.

Conservative

Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB

Madam Speaker, I am splitting my time tonight with my hon. colleague for Langley—Aldergrove.

It is my honour to address the House this evening and to address another faulty bill being pushed through Parliament by the Liberal government: Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts. To begin, let us look at the title of this bill, which says “to make related and consequential amendments”. They are consequential in that they have consequences.

In this case, it is safe to say that this bill, if passed as written and subsequently amended at committee by the government, will have serious consequences for Canadians. We could have a discussion about net neutrality, which Canadians have enjoyed largely in their online consumption choices these past decades. This bill would, in fact, seek to upend the very nature of what Canadians can do on the web. Of course that is not the intent. No, it could not be. It has merely been written that way, and amended and partially changed through a process Canadians became aware of through the efforts of stalwart parliamentarians: my colleagues in the Conservative Party in the House of Commons and the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. They identified the intrusion in not only the use of the Internet for uploads and downloads, and the overreach in regulating this activity, but the consequences it would have on the very notion of freedom of speech, one of the rights Canadians have enjoyed—

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting ActGovernment Orders

11:20 p.m.

Liberal

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

There is a point of order.

The hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting ActGovernment Orders

11:20 p.m.

Conservative

Alex Ruff Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague is giving a great speech, but unfortunately I would like to question if we still have quorum.

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting ActGovernment Orders

11:20 p.m.

Liberal

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

Yes, we have quorum online. There are 63 members present.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting ActGovernment Orders

11:20 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe that if you were to go back and look at the rules that were set out with regard to the hybrid session, there is no indication that people must have their cameras on to be considered to be in the House.

Unless there are strict rules with respect to that, I would submit that all of the people who are currently online, as you have indicated, are in fact considered to be seated in the House of Commons right now.

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting ActGovernment Orders

11:20 p.m.

Conservative

Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB

Madam Speaker, there were only five people who had their cameras on that we counted. I believe your ruling was wrong.

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting ActGovernment Orders

11:20 p.m.

Liberal

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

I did not make a ruling. I have just been told by the table officers that at the moment they have more than 20 members who have been accounted for.

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting ActGovernment Orders

11:20 p.m.

Conservative

Alex Ruff Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON

Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, being a relatively new MP in the House of Commons, what I recall is that when quorum is called is the time period we attribute it to.

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting ActGovernment Orders

11:20 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Madam Speaker, as members know, when quorum is called by a member as he just did, quite often prior to the hybrid version of sitting if there were not enough members, provided that the members entered the chamber, then quorum would be considered to have been reached and the meeting would continue. Even if one could argue that having their camera turned off meant that they were not here, which I submitted to you previously was not the case, the fact that they have now restored their cameras to being on would definitely cover the matter as it normally would during any regular sitting of the House.

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting ActGovernment Orders

11:20 p.m.

Conservative

Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB

Madam Speaker, there are members with their cameras on, but they are not in the shot of the camera. They are clearly not present in debate, so I think you also need to rule on whether or not they count for quorum, because their cameras are on, but they are clearly not in their chair, they are clearly not in the video and they have not come back during this discussion.

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting ActGovernment Orders

11:25 p.m.

NDP

Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB

Madam Speaker, I figured I would just point out that while there may be members who are not in their camera shot, they could very well be listening and taking notes on another part of their desk.

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting ActGovernment Orders

11:25 p.m.

Liberal

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

I have been reassured there is quorum. The moment the hon. member asked, obviously people started coming in and started turning on their cameras.

I will allow the hon. member for Calgary Centre to resume his speech.

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting ActGovernment Orders

11:25 p.m.

Conservative

Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB

Madam Speaker, we were talking about the very notion of the freedom of speech Canadians enjoy, one of the rights Canadians have enjoyed since being introduced by Prime Minister John Diefenbaker in 1960 and embedded in Canada's Constitution in 1982. Freedom of expression in Canada is protected as a fundamental freedom by section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The charter also permits the government to enforce reasonable limits.

I would say from experience that a large amount of Canadian communication between parties, individuals, businesses and organizations of all types, even governments and their agencies, happens via the Internet. Where does the problem arise in this legislation? Bill C-10 creates a new category of web media called “online undertakings” and gives the CRTC the same power to regulate them that it has for TV and radio stations. What is an online undertaking? Whatever one uploads onto the web is an online undertaking, such as videos, podcasts, music and websites. It is a huge regulatory stretch. However, Canadians should not fret as the CRTC will not act in the way the legislation is written, or so it has said.

Let us look back at that notion of freedom of expression and how we as legislators are supposed to ensure the legislation we consider abides by this fundamental piece of protection embodied in our constitutional bill of rights and freedoms. The Department of Justice Act requires the justice minister to provide a charter statement for every government bill that explains whether it respects the charter. The charter statement for Bill C-10 directly cites the social media exemption in its assessment that the bill respects this part of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Then, poof, at committee the Liberals removed the cited exemption from the legislation. When my Conservative colleagues rightly asked for a new assessment based on the new wording of the legislation, the Liberals decided to shut down debate at the committee.

At this point, I think Canadians would ask where the Minister of Justice is on this issue and why he will not seek and provide the legislative charter statement from his department. I have watched the Minister of Justice and let me illustrate how he operates in my opinion.

Regarding Bill C-7, an act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), admittedly no bill is perfect, yet this bill passed through committee here in the House of Commons and members from all parties voted in a free vote to pass the legislation. The legislation passed with the input of witnesses who wanted to respect the rights of disadvantaged Canadians and it worked through this House. The minister, despite that democratic process, manipulated the legislation with an amendment at the Senate and forced an amended bill back to this House, a bill that disrespects the input he received through witnesses and parliamentarians in the process. It was pure manipulation.

Regarding Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, after one hour of debate on a bill that my indigenous constituents are asking for clarity with respect to the defined terms in Canadian law and how it affects them, the Minister of Justice shut down debate, saying it had been debated enough.

Perhaps it is unparliamentary to state openly here that the minister's remarks are completely disingenuous. I have watched him during question period while he brazenly denies that his judicial appointments have nothing to do with Liberal Party lists. That is disingenuous. I know why Canadians are losing faith in governments.

Now we have this, the refusal to provide an updated charter statement. Shame on the minister.

Coming back to the bill, if passed, Canadian content uploaders will be subject to CRTC oversight. Yes, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission will be looking at uploads all day long. That is in fact who is writing the bill and in fact the government organization trying to gain some relevance with it, but Canadians do not have to worry because it will not enforce the law as it is written.

Let me quote Timothy Denton, a former national commissioner of the CRTC, who now serves as the chairman of the Internet Society of Canada, who stated:

...their fundamental [principle here] is...that freedom of speech through video or audio should be in the hands of the CRTC — including Canadians’ freedom to use the internet to reach audiences and markets as they see fit.... The freedom to communicate across the internet is to be determined by political appointees, on the basis of no other criterion than what is conducive to broadcasting policy — and, presumably, the good of our domestic industry. As always, the interests of the beneficiaries of regulation are heard first, best, and last. Consumers and individual freedoms count for little when the regulated sector beats its drums.

Finally, let me congratulate the government on this one step. We have been through 15 months of an unprecedented time in our modern history, with lockdowns, economic dislocation and devastation, and literally a pandemic. The press does not cover what happens in the House and the myriad mistakes the government has made because governments make mistakes in unforeseen, unprecedented times. Canadians have given the government some benefit of the doubt about these mistakes and so do all people of goodwill, but it is our job in opposition to do our utmost for the country in oversight and to provide solutions to make our outcomes better.

I thank all my colleagues for the work in helping Canadians during these unprecedented times. I should thank the Liberal government for providing a coalescing issue that has Canadians from all backgrounds and political beliefs in my riding united in reaching out to make sure the bill does not pass. The bill and the government's responses to reasonable amendments to protect Canadians' rights show its ambivalence to Canadians and their rights.

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting ActGovernment Orders

11:30 p.m.

NDP

Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB

Madam Speaker, I know my colleague is very thoughtful and careful in his language, but he spoke about amendments that have been put forward to make the bill better. I wonder what he can say about an amendment that the Conservative Party put forward. It says:

That Bill C-10, in Clause 7, be amended by adding after line 19 on page 8 the following:

9.2 An online undertaking that provides a social media service is deemed not to exercise programming control over programs uploaded by any user of the social media service who is not the provider of the service or the provider’s affiliate, or the agent or mandatary of either of them.

It seems quite clear to me that this was an excellent amendment. I voted for it and it passed. It was a Conservative amendment. I am wondering why he thinks it does not protect freedom of expression.