Debates of June 10th, 2022

Official Languages

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our two official languages are part of our country's history and they are at the heart of our identity as Canadians. The Minister of Official Languages recently launched consultations for the next official languages action plan.

Would the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Official Languages tell us what our government is doing to make sure that Canadians in minority communities across the country are heard and to make sure we have the best game plan to protect our two official languages across Canada?

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Sudbury for her engagement and dedication to the francophone community and her community.

We launched Canada-wide consultations on the action plan. We will consult communities across Canada to find out about their priorities and their vision for official language minority communities. Under our existing plan, we have also made unprecedented investments in official language minority communities from coast to coast to coast.

I am looking forward to working on the next phase with the action plan, which will play an important role in Canadians' lives.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Ukrainian refugees who have settled in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith and across Canada are struggling with resettlement costs. In our communities, people like Yvette have been working tirelessly and spending money out of their own pockets to help Ukrainian families seeking safety. Ukrainians arriving in Canada, who have lost everything, are unable to access key supports.

Why will the government not do the right thing and grant Ukrainian and other refugees permanent status so they have the supports they need?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asks a very important question. We developed, in an emergency situation, a brand new model of temporary protection, because we heard of the vast numbers of people who wanted to come but also want to go back home when it is safe to do so.

It is really important, though, that there be additional supports that are atypical for people who come as visitors to Canada, because these are people in need of safe haven. We have established income supports and supports for temporary accommodations. We have fully funded settlement services to ensure that people who are coming as part of this safe program are able to benefit from those services.

We are going to continue to do what we can, not just to get people here but to make sure they are supported after they land.

Government Response to Petitions

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to three petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.

Procedure and House Affairs

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I present, in both official languages, the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in relation to Bill C-14, an act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (electoral representation).

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendments. I would like to thank all members involved and their teams, the clerk, the legislative clerk and the analysts for making this happen so quickly.

Pandemic Day Act

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

moved that Bill S-209, An Act respecting Pandemic Observance Day, be read the first time.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present this bill in the House of Commons, introduced by Senator Marie-Françoise Mégie, as a way to commemorate the efforts Canadians made to get through the pandemic. Bill S-209 seeks to designate March 11 as pandemic observance day.

I want to take the opportunity to thank Senator Mégie for coming up with this important bill, which addresses a turning point in the life of Canadians. I want to thank the hon. member for Etobicoke North for seconding this bill in the House.

As a physician, I know how essential it was to act swiftly to save lives. Many frontline workers risked their own lives to save others, and the people of Canada showed great resilience and compassion to help bend the transmission curve. The pandemic brought very contrasting aspects to life. We lost friends and family, but we also witnessed human solidarity at its very best.

It is vital to commemorate these events and keep them in the collective memory for years to come. Let us remember how our world changed forever and how, once again, human resilience succeeded.

(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)

Instruction to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage

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

moved:

That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage that, during its consideration of Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, the committee be granted the power to travel throughout Canada to hear testimony from interested parties and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee, provided that the travel does not exceed 10 sitting days.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke for seconding what I believe to be a very important motion.

As members are aware, Motion No. 16 was presented today. It is basically a draconian way of dealing with issues and matters of the House by the government. It is a way of stifling debate. It is a way of silencing the voices of millions of Canadians who sent their elected representatives here to Ottawa.

Bill C-11 has been universally panned, for lack of a better word, by content creators and others who are concerned about censorship on the Internet and concerned about content creation. We heard this morning the member for Perth—Wellington give a very good description of some of the concerns with this bill.

Effectively, what Motion No. 16 has done is basically taken the work out of the hands of the committee on this extremely important bill. The government is ramming it through, with the help of its NDP partners, in order to get it passed through Parliament without addressing many of the concerns that are being brought up by those who, as I said earlier, are expressing significant concerns about issues related to censorship.

I have been hearing from my constituents on this. Over the last two or three days, Canadians have become increasingly engaged on this issue. They are finding out what is going on.

Similar to a previous iteration of this bill, Bill C-10, Canadians are concerned. In fact, I would suggest they are more concerned about what is going with Bill C-11 and the impact it is going to have on their ability to see what is on the Internet and produce what is on the Internet. There are concerns, as we heard, as to the power the bill gives the government and the censorship role it gives to the government. It contributes, in my opinion, even more to what we see as a decline in democracy here in Canada, whereby millions of voices, including the Speaker's voice, is silenced as a result of draconian measures.

What this motion would do is allow the committee to travel across the country to hear from those who it has not heard from before. This motion is important because the Conservative opposition has said we are not going to agree to committee travel. The motion highlights the importance of hearing from those in Canada who are extremely concerned about this bill and the censorship it can create. It would allow the committee to do its work, function properly and hear the voices that are being silenced in this place. “Parliament” comes from parler, or “to speak”, yet we are being silenced on this bill.

There is another interesting part to this. I have been watching closely the deliberations at the heritage committee and have been speaking to our shadow minister of heritage about the level of dysfunction that has been created as a result of the chair of the committee not coming to Ottawa and being on Zoom. It speaks to the overall dysfunction of this place. Hybrid Parliament is having such a tremendous impact on the ability of the committees to do their work, and there are health implications for the people who work here, namely the interpreters.

In my opinion, it is time for hybrid Parliament to end. We need to get back to normal. That forms the basis of every argument we have been making in this place.

I am moving this motion in the hopes that we can allow the committee to have its deliberations and speak to Canadians who are concerned about government censorship and the impact this bill will have. We need the support of Parliament to allow the committee to do its job.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little perplexed about the motion that has just been moved and need a bit of clarification. The member acknowledged himself that the Conservatives have been opposing committee travel. Now, all of a sudden, for a study on Bill C-11 that they have spent an extended amount of time on, with over 20 hours' worth of witnesses, they would like to see travel.

Can the member please explain this 180° turn?

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

Mr. Speaker, of course I can. There are committees of this Parliament that want to travel all around the world. They have moved motions to travel to places such as Brussels and other parts of the world that do not have the same restrictions as those the Liberal government is imposing on its own citizens. The hypocrisy is palpable.

We are still allowed to travel domestically in Canada, and we think the committee can do it safely. The Liberal Party is imposing restrictions on Canadians for travel abroad, especially on those who are unvaccinated, and is putting parliamentarians at risk in other countries. We do not believe there is a risk, especially to travel here in Canada.

As I mentioned at the onset, this is work that needs to be done. The voices being silenced are from those who are critical of this bill. We need the committee to travel to listen to those voices.

Maybe the Liberals should end the mandates. Then maybe we could get on with normal life here in Canada, stop restricting Canadians from seeing their families and stop businesses from being affected by the resurgence of issues. Businesses want to succeed, not for the Liberals to get in the way.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have some questions for my hon. colleague because he said he has been following the deliberations of the heritage committee. He knows that the committee had the equivalent of over five weeks's worth of witnesses, that the committee was going to call additional witnesses but the Conservatives blocked that with a filibuster and that all other parties and all other members of the committee have filed their amendments. For a couple of weeks we tried to move forward, but the Conservatives refused, and the amendments were all filed last week.

The Conservatives also blocked having hearings for the very serious allegations that have come up regarding Hockey Canada. These are very serious allegations of sexual assault, and the Conservatives blocked those hearings, which would have been held next Monday and Wednesday, from being voted on. It is a very curious and very destructive strategy the Conservatives have adopted at committee in refusing to do their work and put in amendments, and in refusing and blocking witnesses.

With all of that as a background, my question to my colleague is this. We have heard Conservative MPs say that somehow Bill C-11 is linked to the government following people on cellphones and to censorship, none of which is in the bill at all. Why did Conservative MPs not read the bill before we had the consideration we have had over the course of the last few weeks?

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

Mr. Speaker, maybe the member is hoping for a cabinet seat so he can have the Liberal talking points, which he has clearly used since the supply and coalition agreement was enacted. The member has sold his soul to the Liberals, so I do not take anything he has to say, frankly, with any sense of credibility at all because—

[The Acting Speaker, Green, Mike Morrice]

We have a point of order by the member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the official opposition House leader should know that the vicious personal insults he is throwing on the floor of the House of Commons are not in order. I would also question the relevance of his response.

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

Mr. Speaker, the truth hurts.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to see you in the chair.

I have a very quick question for the official opposition House leader. Does he believe that, because the chair of the heritage committee will not come to Ottawa, perhaps the heritage committee should go to the chair?

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

Mr. Speaker, we have been seeing that all along, and it is a great point the hon. member brings up. We have seen the dysfunction of virtual Parliament. I mentioned that as I was speaking about the motion. We have seen the impacts that it has had on the translation bureau, for example. If the chair will not come to Ottawa, then, yes, maybe we need to take the committee out to Vancouver or other places to eliminate and stop the dysfunction.

I think this speaks to the broader picture. The broader picture here is that the Liberals are misusing hybrid Parliament. We saw it today in question period. How many parliamentary secretaries, who should be here in the seat of power, in the seat of Parliament, are—

[The Acting Speaker, Green, Mike Morrice]

The member for Brampton North has a point of order.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if you can help guide me. The members of the official opposition keep pointing out the presence of members, whether they are present in the House or not, and I think they should be stopped from doing so.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, we all attended question period, and observing what happened during question period is not indirectly doing what one cannot do directly. The deputy whip for the government is certainly looking to interrupt the opposition House leader, but she has not articulated anything that is contrary to the rules of this place.

[The Acting Speaker, Green, Mike Morrice]

It is standard practice not to comment about those who are in the House or attending virtually, so I would encourage members to continue following the ruling that has already been made.

We will now go back to the House leader of the official opposition.

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe I stand in a live television studio, and those who were watching us today know who was here and who was not. Certainly, I am not going to point out who was here and who was not, but people who were here can certainly see that for themselves.

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

Mr. Speaker, congratulations on what I believe is your first ruling in the House.

There has been a lot of emphasis on the fact that under the super-closure motion, there is not enough time to hear witnesses in committee. I would be curious to know how much time my colleague thinks is enough. We know that many TikTokers and YouTubers have come to testify, some even twice.

How much would be enough in the Conservatives' eyes? I did not hear that answer.

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

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully suggest that it would be enough to hear from both sides of the argument, those who are in favour of the bill and those who are opposed. Perhaps, as a result of those interactions, we could allow consequential amendments that would fix the bill. We have heard that there are some serious problems with this bill, not the least of which is proposed section 4.2.

There are four substantive things we are concerned about. I am also concerned about the amendments we are hearing about from those who are looking at this bill and saying it needs to be fixed. It is not just those who understand these sorts of things, these censorship issues, but content creators too, so we need some substantive time to consider not just the bill itself, but amendments to the bill as well.

By the way, Mr. Speaker, you are doing a great job up there.

[The Acting Speaker, Green, Mike Morrice]

I thank the member.

The hon. Minister of National Revenue has a point of order.