House of Commons Hansard #122 of the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was farmers.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
The question is on the motion.
If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Madam Speaker, I would request a recorded division.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
Pursuant to order made on Monday, January 25, the recorded division stands deferred until Tuesday, June 22 at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
Motion That Debate Be Not Further AdjournedBroadcasting ActGovernment Orders
Ottawa—Vanier Ontario
Liberal
Mona Fortier LiberalMinister of Middle Class Prosperity and Associate Minister of Finance
Madam Speaker, in relation to the consideration of Government Business No. 10, I move, seconded by the Minister of Canadian Heritage:
That the debate be not further adjourned.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period.
The hon. House leader of the official opposition.
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
Madam Speaker, here we are again to talk about the infamous Bill C‑10. We know that this bill has a direct impact on freedom of speech.
We were surprised to see that the bill originally contained a fundamental provision, clause 4.1, which clearly defined the terms of freedom of speech and clearly indicated that this bill would not affect those working on social media when it came time to produce and post music or cultural activities.
Unfortunately, the government withdrew that amendment. Members will recall that the second opposition party asked for that clause to be reinstated three times. When we proposed that amendment, the government and the second opposition party opposed it.
How can the government introduce a bill that does not protect freedom of expression as it should, particularly since that protection used to be set out in the bill in black and white?
Motion That Debate Be Not Further AdjournedBroadcasting ActGovernment Orders
Laurier—Sainte-Marie Québec
Liberal
Steven Guilbeault LiberalMinister of Canadian Heritage
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his comments. I would like to remind him of certain facts.
First, several members of his political party asked us to go even further with Bill C‑10. We heard the same thing from an impressive number of stakeholders from across Canada, who told us that now that a company like YouTube has become the biggest distributor of music in Canada, it has to be included in Bill C‑10. We did that.
The Department of Justice's highly independent and competent officials testified before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. They carried out an analysis that demonstrated there are no issues with freedom of expression and Bill C‑10. In the bill, there are elements that provide for freedom of expression, freedom of creation and freedom of the press. My colleague opposite is also very aware of that.
Furthermore, the CRTC is not above Canadian law. The CRTC must also comply with Canada's many laws, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Alain Therrien Bloc La Prairie, QC
Madam Speaker, time allocation is rarely acceptable. The Bloc Québécois defends the interests of Quebeckers. We have been saying so since we first got here, and we have never deviated from that guiding principle.
Bill C‑10 has unanimous support in Quebec. Quebeckers agree. Quebec's artistic and cultural community, the very essence of our own identity, is waiting. It has supported the bill for a long time now. The Bloc Québécois will support this time allocation motion to make web giants pay their fair share to our creators, who have often been taken advantage of by these giants.
I would like to ask the minister a very simple question: Do you think waiting is costly for our Quebec creators?
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
I would like to remind the hon. member to address his remarks to the Chair, not directly to the minister.
The hon. minister.
Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Madam Speaker, through you, I want to thank my hon. colleague across the aisle for his question and for his party's support for Bill C‑10.
He is quite right. This bill has the unanimous support of the Quebec National Assembly and the vast majority of artists. In fact, several thousand artists and organizations representing hundreds of thousands of artists in Quebec, of course, but also across the country, signed a petition in support of Bill C‑10.
My colleague is right about the wait. Every month that goes by deprives artists of $70 million. Some say that even if Bill C‑10 were to pass, it would not come into force immediately. I agree, but every month that the implementation of Bill C‑10 is delayed means $70 million less for our artists and arts organizations.
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Madam Speaker, I am rather shocked to see just how poorly the Liberals have managed this file. Based on the Yale report, we all agree that the web giants need to be included in the ecosystem. There is no issue there. That is not what is being debated.
The Liberal government imposed a gag order on a committee. That has happened just three times in 150 years. The gag order was for five hours, not even 10. They managed to impose it, which is very rare, but it was not enough. They still managed to drop the ball when they extended the proceedings to pass certain amendments, which were ultimately rejected by a ruling of the Speaker of the House.
Today, the Liberals moved a supermotion. Our issue is not with the substance of this bill, which is to protect culture and artists.
How are the Liberals incapable of passing a bill like this, even after imposing a gag order in committee? It is unbelievable.
Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Madam Speaker, what I find shocking and what the artistic community cannot understand is that the NDP refuses to support Bill C‑10 and that it has sided with the Conservative Party.
I do not think anyone is surprised to see the Conservative Party do this, but I must admit that it is a surprise and a major disappointment to see the NDP follow suit.
Paul Manly Green Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Madam Speaker, the bill has been flawed from the beginning, and we have worked pretty hard at committee to try to fix it with over 120 amendments. The discussion around freedom of expression and whether the small online undertakings are responsible for the content that is uploaded comes down to a question of what is already in the Broadcasting Act. The act, which is from 1991, says, “This Act shall be construed and applied in a manner that is consistent with the freedom of expression and journalistic, creative and programming independence enjoyed by broadcasting undertakings.”
Does that include the content that is uploaded by users of social media platforms? Has the minister looked into this to see that the constitutionality of the bill would stand up, or are we going to see challenges to the bill under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for freedom of expression?
Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Madam Speaker, the hon. member and I have had numerous exchanges about Bill C-10, and I know he is very passionate about this. Again, I would remind the hon. member that the very credible, very competent and very independent civil servants of the Ministry of Justice have looked into this issue and provided analysis and testimonies to accompany them to the heritage committee, and that confirmed that there is no issue regarding Bill C-10 and freedom of expression or freedom of creation.
Motion That Debate Be Not Further AdjournedBroadcasting ActGovernment Orders
Toronto—Danforth Ontario
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage
Madam Speaker, I think of some of the stuff we have heard, particularly from the Conservative opposition. I believe it was the member for Lethbridge who stated that the modernization of the Broadcasting Act was about supporting a niche lobby group and supporting artists or creators who cannot sell. I think the quote was about creating things that Canadians did not want to watch.
Perhaps it might be helpful if you would explain for us why are we doing this? Who is this supporting, and are they not the kinds of creations that Canadians do in fact want to watch and enjoy, and that create jobs right across our country?
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
I remind the hon. parliamentary secretary that she is to address all questions and comments through the Chair.
The hon. Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for her advocacy for artists and cultural organizations across the country.
It is important to remember that as more and more people transit from watching or listening to their music in more traditional ways to online streaming platforms, the revenues of Canadian traditional broadcasters are going down. As a society, we count on these revenues to fund our artists and our cultural sector for productions like Kim's Convenience, which has been a worldwide hit. In fact, it was one of the most-watched shows for a while in South Korea. We could be talking about Schitt's Creek, or Corner Gas or District 31. All these productions have received government support through the Broadcasting Act.
What we are doing right now is ensuring our legislation and regulations are adapted to the realities of the 21st century, and ensuring web giants pay their fair share. Why the Conservatives, and it seems sometimes the NDP, would be opposed to that is a bit beyond me.
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Madam Speaker, ever since the minister introduced Bill C-10 in November, everyone has been trying to improve it, despite its flaws. It did not address copyrights or CBC/Radio-Canada's mandate, and it was missing a lot of things to protect Canadian businesses and domestic French-language and Canadian productions.
Everyone tried to compromise to find a solution and improve the bill up until one Friday afternoon when the minister withdrew clause 4.1, which was supposed to be added to the Broadcasting Act, going after the content of social media users.
My question for the minister and the Liberals is quite simple. Despite the gag order that the government imposed on us in committee and the fact that the Chair called the government to order by ruling many amendments out of order at committee stage—amendments that we will be voting on this evening—will the government agree to vote in favour of reinserting clause 4.1 into the legislation to protect the content of social media users, whatever it might be?
Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Madam Speaker, for starters, I have to refute the premise of my hon. colleague's question.
He says that everyone worked in good faith, but I just want to remind him that, well before Bill C‑10 was even introduced, the former leader of the official opposition told the House that, had it been up to him, he would have tossed the Yale report, which had just been tabled, right in the trash. Furthermore, as soon as Bill C‑10 was introduced, the Conservative Party objected to it, said the bill was bad and should be scrapped, and told us to start over.
In my opinion, there is no truth to the claim that everyone worked in good faith to move Bill C‑10 forward.
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Speaker, it seems that the minister may be quite confused. He keeps saying that he does not quite understand the NDP position in not voting with his government to push this through Parliament. The New Democrats have been clear. We are very supportive of getting help to our artists and we are supportive of Bill C-10. However, perhaps what the minister does not understand is the role Parliament plays in our parliamentary system, similar to the way the minister did not seem to really understand how broadcasting worked or, in fact, how his own bill worked before he tabled it.
We can be supportive of legislation and also find it very problematic to watch the way the minister has managed this file and is now trying to shove it through Parliament without giving parliamentarians time to get this bill right. I have offered time and again to work through the summer, to do whatever we need to do to get this bill through, and the minister just keeps asking why we will not support the Liberal time allocation. How is that respecting Parliament?
Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, there are two things I would like to answer for the hon. colleague. The first is that I was with the leader of the Bloc Québécois and the leader of the NDP on Tout le monde en parle, during which all three of us committed to work together to ensure Bill C-10 would be adopted. Right after that, the NDP changed its mind, after committing in front of millions of Quebeckers and Canadians that the NDP would work with us to ensure that Bill C-10 would be adopted. Was that a lie to the Canadian public and to the viewers of this show, I do not know.
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am wondering if the member actually accused the NDP of lying. We are not supposed to do in the House. I wonder if he wants to take that back.
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Mr. Speaker, on that point of order, I believe the minister questioned if something that was said could have been a lie. He did not specifically call anybody a liar. He was trying to understand. It seems to me as though he was trying to personally rationalize the situation.
The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
I thank hon. members for their interventions. I did not hear the minister's words in this case as I was taken aside for a moment on an administrative matter. For general purposes, references to lying is always a tricky area. Generally, if it is not applied to an individual member, group and so on, although it is not advisable, it is not an unparliamentary reference.
The hon. minister can finish his response.
Motion That Debate Be Not Further AdjournedBroadcasting ActGovernment Orders
Liberal
Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, the vast majority of artists support Bill C-10 and want it to be adopted. In fact, thousands of artists have signed a petition in favour of the bill. What the NDP is telling them and the chamber is that the NDP knows best, that artists do not know or understand. We have chosen to listen to artists, not the other way around.