Debates of May 30th, 2022

Bill C-18—Time Allocation Motion

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Madam Speaker, some numbers came out this morning about the importance of supporting a free and independent press, and they are quite interesting.

If members do not want to listen to me, then maybe they can at least listen to their own voters, the people who voted for them, and 71% of self-identified Conservative voters think web giants should have to share revenue with Canadian media outlets. That is 71% of Conservatives. I have a second number, and it is that 74% of self-identified Conservative voters think that Parliament should pass a law that would let smaller outlets negotiate collectively with web giants. This is exactly what we are doing with this bill.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, this bill is important. It is important to ensure that web giants such as Facebook, Meta and Google pay their fair share. When I think about the Canadians watching the debate and the constituents of our Conservative colleagues watching this party obstruct not only this bill but so many more before it, I imagine they are disappointed.

I'm wondering if the minister can speak to those Canadians and talk a bit about the importance of the work we do here and how it is incredibly disappointing to see what the Conservatives have been doing.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is a very important comment from my colleague. I want to thank her for everything she is doing, and her party for what it is doing, on this very important bill.

With respect to Canadians being disappointed, of course they are disappointed with the Conservatives. I am very disappointed myself with them, which says a lot. However, it is not only Canadians. I referred to the numbers: 71% of Conservative voters said that we should do this and 74% said we should allow small media outlets to negotiate with the big web giants. This is written in the bill, so if the Conservatives do not want to listen to me or to us, will they at least listen to the people who might vote for them in the future?

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, since we are making up numbers, I have a poll here stating that 100% of Liberal voters did not vote for an NDP-Liberal coalition, but that is where we are at. With how quickly and how far the New Democrats have fallen in holding the government to account as a fourth party, they sound like lapdogs to the Liberal Party.

This is important because the government representative, the minister, is talking about obstruction that has been going on, but we have had two hours of debate on this bill. The official opposition, Her Majesty's loyal opposition, has had one member speak to this bill, which has been universally panned. There is no question that there is a need to fix this issue, but when we actively engage in vigorous debate in this place, ideas are formed. That is how better bills are passed. To see the heritage minister use obstruction as a reason for ramming this bill through the House is rather disingenuous.

The minister's legacy will be a decline in democracy as it relates to this institution. We wonder why people are losing faith in our institutions, and this the exact reason: Voices are being silenced in this place, those of millions of people who voted for opposition parties, including the Conservatives. It is a legacy he will have to live with.

A free and open democracy requires an independent news media. We agree with that, but this is not the way to get this done.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Madam Speaker, if my colleague agrees with that, he has a weird way of showing it. I see the Conservatives attacking the New Democrats because they come here trying to make a difference. On some things we collaborate; on others we do not and we disagree, which is fine. However, to the Conservatives the word “collaboration” makes no sense. What they prefer to do is jam things, filibuster, listen to each other and clap for each other all the time. They think it is a good thing to shut down democracy like they are doing now. It is totally wrong.

We have to move forward. This bill has to move forward. This bill will go to committee and will have hours of discussion and witnesses. I will go there and speak about the importance of it and how it allows collective bargaining to help smaller media news outlets and regional news outlets. I will talk about how this will translate into fair agreements between the tech giants and media outlets across the country. I will talk about the importance of the press. I will talk about the importance of the press for our democracy and the importance of a strong, free and independent press, because that is what bill C-18 is all about. That is it.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, to the hon. minister, this moment we have now is not about debating the substance of Bill C-18. I look forward to an opportunity to debate that, but I will not get that opportunity because time allocation is being used again.

I have to say that, on principle, I object to this. I objected to it when the previous administration under Stephen Harper did it over and over again at a level unprecedented in parliamentary history. What is now happening is the governing Liberals are normalizing the suppression of debate at second reading. Maybe we can debate this in the Standing Orders debate we are to have. Is the goal of governing parties in this place to shut down all debate at second reading and just say, “We will get to it in committee”? That is not acceptable.

This is not acceptable and I will not be voting for time allocation. On principle, I have maybe once been persuaded that there really was a case for it, but today on Bill C-18 there is no case for it.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is important that we move on with such a crucial bill for our democracy. I think it is a well-balanced bill. We took the original idea from Australia and we tweaked it and improved it. It is more transparent. It is arm's length legislation, and we have set the table for the tech giants to sit down with media outlets big and small so they can negotiate to come to different agreements. There is minimal intervention from the government.

The Conservatives should be happy about it, but they do not seem to be happy. I do not understand why. They even wrote in their own platform that they would do exactly what we are doing. Maybe they changed their minds again on this, but I think we are doing the right thing.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, when I was in opposition in the third party, I indicated that there is a time when governments need to use time allocation as a tool to pass legislation. We have before us today, and have witnessed for a number of months now, an official opposition that has absolutely no intention to allow legislation to pass. It does not take very much for an opposition party to prevent legislation from passing. As I said when I was in opposition, at times the government has to use time allocation as a tool.

Would my colleague not agree that, given the strategy of the Conservative Party not to pass legislation and to even filibuster legislation that it supports, the only way we can pass this legislation is if we use time allocation, something the Conservative Party used to vote for extensively?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would say more than extensively. I was here with my colleague, and the Conservatives were using time allocation time after time, even when we were not doing anything. However, in this case, the Conservatives are jamming the debate on many important transformational bills, on bills that Canadians want and even on bills that Conservative supporters now want.

This bill is fundamental. As we speak, news media outlets are closing their doors. I spoke about the 450, but there are more and more. Time is of the essence.

There is debate here. There is debate in committee. There is debate at the Senate. These important debates have to take place and have to bring us to the conclusion where this bill is adopted, because this is what Canada needs.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, this is my last question. I certainly understand that all the questions about the process we are going through will not be answered.

I heard the minister. The Bloc Québécois is not just here to oppose things. We will vote in favour of things that are good for Quebec, and, obviously, we believe that Bill C‑18 is extremely good for Quebec.

Nevertheless, if collaboration is so important, why was the Bloc Québécois not consulted so that we could reach an agreement ahead of time? This is not our first time allocation rodeo. Over the past few weeks, closure has been all the rage. Again, the question is, how did we get to this point? Are the Liberals short on inspiration or on strategy?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is consulted regularly. In fact, I have an excellent professional relationship and excellent collaboration with the Bloc's heritage critic, the member for Drummond.

As I said off the top, the member cares deeply about all of this and he takes this extremely seriously. I know he consults people, and I know he does so very thoroughly because we talk to the same people. He offers suggestions, he listens to what we say and we talk about it all. We will continue to discuss issues with my colleague from Drummond, the rest of the Bloc Québécois and all the parties. What matters is moving this bill forward because Canada needs it.

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

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.

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 Perth—Wellington.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, we request a recorded division.

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

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #104

Online News Act

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I declare the motion carried.

I wish to inform the House that because of the proceedings on the time allocation motion, Government Orders will be extended by 30 minutes.

The House resumed from May 13 consideration of the motion that Bill C-18, An Act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Second Reading

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to talk about an important piece of legislation. I suspect that what we would find is virtually universal support, no matter where one goes in Canada, for this type of legislation.

In fact, it was not that long ago when we were in a national election and the Conservative Party of Canada was talking about how important it was to deal with this very same issue. On the one hand, Conservatives seemed to love the idea back in September, but something has happened. Maybe it is that leadership vacuum, but the bottom line is that the Conservatives now seem to want to waffle.

Let me assure my friends across the way that Canadians understand the issue. They understand it fully. Unlike the Conservatives, we recognize the value of our public having media sources they can actually count on and of supporting that industry, both directly and indirectly.

Someone who was suspicious of the Conservative tactics on this legislation might raise a couple of issues. One that comes to mind is the issue of fake news. The Conservatives love fake news. It was not that long ago the Conservatives were saying the Liberals are going to put a tax on trucks. Do members remember that one? That was a Conservative fake news spin. A big part of their agenda—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Order. I know we have been away for a week and I am so glad to see that everybody is looking forward to talking and happy to see everybody, but I would ask to just keep the noise down a bit and respect other members.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am trying to emphasize why it is so important that we support the industry. From a government, from a party or even from the average person in our communities, they all recognize the true value of fact-based news. It is somewhat foreign to the Conservative spin doctors, and that is why I brought up the truck issue.

In the very brief discussion I had moments ago, another example came up. Do members remember the fake news when the Conservative Party said the Liberals are going to put a tax on the sale of principal homes? We can stand up in the chamber and tell Conservatives that this is just wrong and is an outright untruth. I did not say the word “lie”; I said “untruth”.

The Conservatives would say something of that nature, and we would stand up and say that it is just not true, yet the Conservatives still try to say something that is questionable—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Order. Let us all take a moment and take a deep breath. Question period is not for another hour or so. Let us bring the temperature down, but also let us not do indirectly what we cannot do directly either.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, let me restart, if I can put it that way. There is an expectation that we all have. We all have it because we went through a national election where it was made very clear that the government was given a new mandate and part of that mandate was to show there was a need for opposition parties and government to work together. We see that taking place quite often between different opposition parties and the government.

Unfortunately, the Conservative Party has taken an approach where it does not matter what the legislation is and the importance of Bill C-18—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

There is a point of order from the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we hear this narrative all the time with the Liberal Party saying that the Conservatives do not co-operate. We had unanimous consent on the constitutional amendment for Saskatchewan, so we have co-operated—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

We are descending. This is debate, and I am sure there are lots of slots that people can fill on this debate on the bill before us today.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader has the floor.