Debates of June 4th, 2021

Bill C-10—Time Allocation Motion

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

Order. The minister keeps being interrupted. I advise members to put themselves on mute when they do not have the floor. I will answer the points of order after the 30 minutes.

The hon. minister.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Madam Speaker, the fourth point I want to make, one that my colleague raised earlier, has to do with freedom of expression.

We had an independent analysis done by public servants at the Department of Justice that found that Bill C-10 is entirely consistent with—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Point of order, Madam Speaker.

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

Order. I have ruled that the motion is in order. We are proceeding with the 30-minute debate. We will come back to the House with examples of precedents. As the hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London has reminded me, I am responsible for keeping decorum in the House. This is the way we are going to proceed.

The hon. minister.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I was saying when making my fourth point, which was about freedom of expression, the deputy minister of justice appeared at committee and said that Bill C-10 was entirely consistent with freedom of expression in Canada.

Furthermore, with respect to legislation governing the CRTC, I would point out that the CRTC is not a state within a state and must also abide by Canadian laws, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I am not aware that the Standing Orders have been suspended to not allow points of order. I believe that would have to be something that is agreed to by the House. It is astounding that debate is being censored on censorship.

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

As I have advised members, the motion as was presented is in order. We are going to bring the House the answer to the questions that were raised in the previous points of order and we will listen to other points of order. Now we are just proceeding with this debate, and we will come back with the answers. I cannot invent answers that I do not have at my fingertips. I have ruled.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

You need to suspend, Madam Speaker, if you do not have a ruling.

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

No, I have ruled that the motion is in order because it respects the—

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

There are points of order, Madam Speaker. If you are confident it is in order, then take the points of order.

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

We are in the middle of a debate. We have 30 minutes.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Chair, point of order.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

There are quite a few points of order coming forward, Madam Speaker. I respectfully suggest that you take those points of order as they are coming up. I know this is difficult, but, respectfully, it is what you need to do.

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

My job here is to ensure decorum of the House and that the work of the House is done. All parliamentarians will be allowed to speak, as I said, after we have the 30 minutes of debate and I have the answers to give the House.

The hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London.

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

Madam Speaker, and to all my Conservatives colleagues, the reason we are seeing this lack of decorum today is that we are outraged. We recognize that they are taking the right of Canadians' free speech away in this bill and this is exactly what we are seeing here. They have chosen to move—

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

Point of order.

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

Excuse me. I appreciate that the member for Kingston and the Islands has lots to say and he has spent all of his time here for the last number of weeks. I have not been able to hear my own colleagues because I have heard his voice over these things.

I recognize this is the issue. We went immediately into the 30 minutes of debate before we even had the opportunity to discuss our points of order. This lack of decorum is because the freedom of speech right here, especially what we are seeing in the sections of these amendments, is being quashed and we will continue to fight.

I request, Madam Speaker, that you please deal with the points of order so that we can have decorum in this place. I do believe that it is the right of Canadians.

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

On that point, Madam Speaker, through her intervention, the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London just admitted that the reason why they are being obstructionist is that they are not happy with the bill. That certainly is not a point of order. A point of order has to do with—

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

That is debate.

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that you have made the decision to listen to the points of order that members are raising, and it is important that we establish whether the motion is in order before we proceed to any question and comment period on it. The questions that I am raising about order are different from questions that other members have raised about whether this motion is in order. There are a number of different concerns with respect to the motion that I would ask you to take into consideration, as well.

I agree with points that have been made by my colleague, with respect to the fact that the Standing Orders prescribe a specific time period. The ruling that has been made with respect to the number of hours equivalent to a day in the House is very different from the hours for which committees can sit. However, there is a particular situation that I confront as the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. I have put forward amendments that deal with specific subject matter on the bill at committee, which is that foreign state-controlled channels seek access to Canada's broadcast system. Those channels have been broadcasting horrific human rights abuses, forced confessions and other human rights abuses. In response to concerns raised by constituents as well as stakeholders, I have undertaken to put forward amendments at the committee stage of the bill, and those amendments would deal with this important subject matter that relates to our broadcasting system.

It is the right of all members, not just members of the heritage committee, to move amendments at the committee stage with respect to a bill, and this is a right that is particularly important to me. Obviously, I am not a regular member of the heritage committee, so I am not normally part of the clause-by-clause process, but because of the work that I am doing on behalf of my constituents and others with respect to the particular issues around forced confessions and human rights abuses, I am putting forward amendments at the committee stage. I have given notice of those amendments. Those amendments have been translated and distributed to members of the heritage committee. They are in their proper form. They are available to be considered, but the motion that has been put forward today would obstruct my right, and the right of other members who have put amendments on notice, to be able to move those amendments forward for consideration.

Having been following the proceedings, I think there is a significant risk that the way the motion has been worded in particular restricts the movement of further amendments. Normally, when time allocation is moved in the House, any amendments that have been moved or put forward are then up for consideration and a vote is prescribed at the end of that time. Also, if a question is put forward, for instance a motion that a question not be further adjourned, that issue is voted on by the House before moving to the vote on the question. Regarding the rights of members, if this motion, and in particular the prohibition on moving amendments, is able to advance, it would prevent me from being able to move an amendment at committee that I had given notice of months ago. It would prevent any reconsideration of aspects of the question, the debate, the movement of the amendment or a vote on it.

I have the same concerns that various colleagues have raised, with respect to the impact of the limited time that has been created, but I also think we need to hear specifically about the measures that prevent members like me from bringing forward amendments that are important to their constituents and to people around the world, in terms of the impact on international human rights. These amendments send a clear message about Canada not being complicit in broadcasting or promoting these horrific abuses. There are forced confessions: People are tortured and forced to confess on TV, and then those messages are being aired in Canadian broadcasting. That is a very important issue. It is an amendment that I think reflects the public interest, and it is an amendment that I suspect would have broad support. I suspect even members of the government would be willing to support some of those amendments that deal with human rights issues, which have not been as widely discussed in the public domain.

I would ask you to rule on the implications, for the rights of members, of this real attack on the ability to move amendments at the committee stage and what it means for the fact that we are supposed to be able to bring forward substantive amendments that we cannot always bring forward in the House.

What does that mean for our rights, as well as the issues of time that I think are still outstanding, insofar as we have not had a ruling on those in the proper form? I would ask you to take these issues under consideration and advise the House on them.

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

I will take them under consideration, and we will advise the House.

The hon. member for Saint-Jean.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased that we have come back to questions and comments. I will take the opportunity to say that despite the uproar around the current debate, there is no reason to abandon our decorum and lose our dignity as MPs. Some of the comments we have heard are cringeworthy to say the least.

The government's decision to move a time allocation motion to speed up the work in committee is not without consequence, as we have seen this morning. For months, Bill C-10 has been held up because it was so late getting passed at second reading and because of the Conservatives' systematic obstruction at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

Far too often we have seen the Liberals filibuster to impede the will of the majority of members of a committee. We saw that at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, the Standing Committee on National Defence and the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

However, when it comes to Bill C-10, it is not just the committee that is being held hostage by the Conservatives, it is the entire cultural sector. We have a responsibility to be reasonable. Time allocation must be an exceptional measure—

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

I have to interrupt the hon. member because the member for Peace River—Westlock is rising on a point of order.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, typically when we run across a Standing Order that is not regularly used and we are about to make new precedent with it, the Speaker gives a long ruling on whether this issue is in order or not. We have not heard the logic for this being in order. This is new to all of us. A text message from my staff last night said, “This is going to be interesting in the morning. We have never seen this before”.

It seems to me that we would see a large ruling. I was expecting to hear from you for several minutes on why this was going to be admissible and how it played into the reasons that this should be going on to a vote this morning. We are voting on Friday, and that also is unusual. Many things about this are unusual, and I was expecting to hear the logic on how we were going to be proceeding on this. I have heard none of the logic on this, and now it feels like this is—