Debates of June 10th, 2022

Instruction to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage

[The Acting Speaker, Green, Mike Morrice]

There is a point of order from the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate it, and thank you for knowing my riding.

Having heard the government deputy whip's remarks with respect to this motion, I would seek the unanimous consent of the House to move to Orders of the Day.

[The Acting Speaker, Green, Mike Morrice]

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Green, Mike Morrice]

Continuing with questions and comments, we will go to the hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by my colleague from Brampton North. She made almost no reference to the motion we are currently debating, the request by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to conduct consultations away from Parliament Hill.

I am trying to understand my colleague's viewpoint. This Conservative Party motion does not really reflect what it wants for the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. Why does the Conservative Party believe that the heritage committee can travel but the foreign affairs committee cannot?

[The Acting Speaker, Green, Mike Morrice]

The hon. member for Brampton North has one minute to respond.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question posed by the member opposite. Unfortunately, I do not think I am in a position best suited to answer it, as it is perplexing to me as well. It is perplexing because foreign affairs has to do with international relations with other countries. All members who are working in the House are vaccinated, and members would be willing to participate in this type of travel.

It is beyond me why the Conservatives would oppose travel for one committee and then force a vote in the House on that very issue in another committee. It seems to me that this is just another tactic from their tool box, which they are trying to use to delay Bill C-11.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am almost without words to see what the Conservatives have done concerning Bill C-11. I am saddened by what we have seen. The deterioration and the disintegration of the Conservative Party over the last few months is something that I think has saddened all of us.

I would remind members that, back in the month of December, and I will pay tribute to the former leader, the member for Durham, the Conservative caucus, led by moderates, was able to actually work with all parties. We had the—

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

We have a point of order from the hon. member for Edmonton Manning.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the speech the member is delivering is really relevant to the discussion of the day. I would like to a see real conversation happen rather than speaking about the former leader of the Conservative Party.

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

I thank the member for the intervention, but there has been 40 seconds of the speech, so we will let the member get to his point. The member has 20 minutes to speak.

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot to say, so I am going to take every single second of that time.

Yes, the Conservatives are sensitive to what happened. The ban on conversion therapy was passed at all stages in the House of Commons. Then we saw the result: The more extremist wing of the Conservative Party took over. We saw a number of Conservative MPs, through the course of the following month, even endorse the so-called “freedom convoy” with its vandalism, violence and stated goal to overthrow democracy, yet we had more extremist Conservative MPs endorsing that concept. It is very disturbing—

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

We have another point of order from the hon. member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I fail to see the relevance of talking about the convoy, or the many other things the member is talking about, to the matter at hand. I would ask that you rule on relevance.

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

I want to thank the member for the intervention. I would suggest that we should keep relevance in mind when we provide any speech in the House of Commons.

I recognize the member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

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

Mr. Speaker, of course, all of this is relevant to the behaviour of the Conservatives in the heritage committee, but I will continue because it is important to have these timelines to explain why we have come to the debate today.

Subsequent to that, we saw the Conservatives become the second block party in the House of Commons. We have the Bloc Québécois, and now we have the block-everything party. Subsequent to the “freedom convoy”, every single piece of legislation has been blocked in the House of Commons. No matter what good it would do for people and no matter what things it would change, the Conservatives have blocked everything.

This, of course, brings us to the heritage committee. I will pay tribute to the member for Perth—Wellington, who is the moderate within the Conservative caucus. Despite the fact that he had the more extremist members represented in the committee not allowing him to do this good work, we did, in the end, agree to the equivalent of five weeks of hearings at the heritage committee around Bill C-11. It made sense. The Conservatives raised at the end of it that perhaps we could hear from further witnesses. There were a couple of witnesses I thought it would be wise to hear from, yet the Conservatives blocked, through filibuster, hearing from the witnesses whom they said they wanted to hear from.

They also blocked at the heritage committee, unbelievably, the ability of the CRTC chair to come and answer questions from members of Parliament. We all had questions, and we had this surreal committee hearing where Conservatives were filibustering as the chair of the CRTC and members of the CRTC were outside the room. While we were all wishing to ask questions of the CRTC, the Conservatives were trying to block that. Eventually, we were able to break that filibuster.

There was another filibuster that stopped the Minister of Canadian Heritage from coming to answer questions on Bill C-11. We had to break that filibuster as well. It has just been an exercise in chaos at the heritage committee, provoked by the Conservatives and their block-everything philosophy.

It is fair to say that, when five weeks of hearings is not sufficient and when there is no attempt by the Conservatives to actually work out a schedule, because it is important in this place that we work out a schedule, the dysfunction that the Conservatives were bringing to the heritage committee then extended to the issue of amendments. The vast majority of witnesses whom we heard from over that five-week equivalent time period were witnesses who were endorsing Bill C-11, but many of the witnesses had clear improvements that they wanted to see to the legislation. Members of all of the other parties understood that.

We tried for two weeks to have an amendment deadline, which makes sense. We want to make sure that, in the administration of the House, timelines are respected. Conservatives categorically refused to set a deadline. Last Friday, all the other members of Parliament from the other parties on the Canadian heritage committee submitted their amendments. We had received texts. We had received a series of interventions and memoirs. We had also heard from witnesses for the equivalent of five weeks, so we knew. The three other parties, the parties that are taking a more adult—

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

The hon. member for South Shore—St. Margarets.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, on point of order, this member, at the beginning, said he was at a loss for words, then he said he had a lot to say. Now he is filibustering, so I am not sure we know what it is—

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

I think we are getting into debate there.

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

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

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for again pointing out that it is absolutely not a point of order. Obviously, Conservatives are made uncomfortable by the stated facts that every other member of the heritage committee submitted their amendments a week ago, yet Conservatives still refuse to submit their amendments and still refuse to do the parliamentary work that we are paid to do.

The sad conclusion to what has been a debacle, which I certainly have not experienced since the days of the Harper government, was this week when I brought forward an amendment that would have allowed for Hockey Canada and for the Minister of Sport to come forward next Monday and next Wednesday to testify on the horrific allegations of sexual assault concerning Hockey Canada. Conservatives say they want to do that, but they refused to hold the vote that would allow us to have those important hearings on Monday and Wednesday. The contradiction between what Conservatives say and what they do is an unbelievable gap.

This is what brings us to the discussion on Motion No. 16 today. When we have a committee that has been deliberately broken by the Conservatives, since they have been radicalized over the last few months, we have a responsibility, as parliamentarians, to—

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

I believe we have point of order from the member for Calgary Centre.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would say that the member for New Westminster—Burnaby referring to me and my colleagues as radicals in the House of Commons is very unparliamentary. I would like you to rule on that immediately, please.

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

In the context of what we are talking about today, I do say that calling somebody a radical is probably a little on the edge, so I would ask the member to find a better word to use.

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would say that these are radical actions certainly. I do not impugn any member, and I certainly think there were disruptive actions over the last few weeks. They have definitely been disruptive actions. Most witnesses come forward to say that improvements need to be brought to the bill, but Conservatives systematically refused to have any consideration for the bill itself. They refused even to hear from the Minister of Canadian Heritage when he was outside the room, and they refused to hear from the chair of the CRTC when he and his staff were outside the room. This kind of conduct is simply not acceptable.

We are engaged by Canadians to examine legislation and to improve legislation. That is part and parcel of our job in the House of Commons. The Conservatives have lamentably failed that over the last few weeks. We were able to get an agreement, which was tragically the last agreement other parties around the table at the heritage committee were able to obtain. The idea of the equivalent of five weeks of hearings is something that made sense. We heard from the major witnesses that we had all submitted. It made sense then to take what they had addressed, the kinds of suggestions that they put forward and from there, get to work on improving that legislation.

As I mentioned, the NDP filed their amendments more than a week ago, yet the Conservatives are a little like someone with a dog that ate their homework. They are refusing those amendments for a bill we believe can be improved. Where does that leave us?

I do need to put in this context the very clear disinformation that we are hearing from some Conservative members. The member for Provencher asked me in one of the evening debates on Bill C-11 about his concern that the government would be following us on cellphones and the connection to Bill C-11.

Mr. Speaker, I know you read the bill assiduously, but there is no reference at all to this. It is a wacko comment to say that somehow Bill C-11 is connected to governments following people on cellphones. It is just an unbelievable piece of disinformation.

We heard repeatedly today from Conservatives talking about censorship. Again, this has absolutely no relevance at all to the bill. As legislators, we are responsible for reading through the legislation. We are responsible for comments that have something to do with the actual legislation that is before us.

It is disappointing to me to see the Conservatives' attempts to block every piece of legislation we have seen over the last few months, even important pieces of legislation that would make a difference in people's lives, and I will reference a couple of them in a moment. This is now being replicated at the committee level where we have Conservatives simply refusing to allow the due diligence that is our responsibility for each piece of legislation.

That is the fundamental issue here. Conservatives basically tried to break the committee. We have three other parties in the democratic system, and the issue of representation is very important. Three of the four parties let us move forward and actually tabled their amendments and did the work. I have a great staff team. We put together those amendments and submitted them. It would then make sense for us to get to consideration of these amendments, but the Conservatives clearly indicated that they have no interest at all.

This happens even when they purport to support something. We can take the issue of Hockey Canada and the horrific allegations of sexual assault around Hockey Canada. The Conservatives said they wanted to study this, so I put forward an amendment for meeting next Monday and next Wednesday at our regularly scheduled times, and Conservatives refused to allow a vote on that. That is serious. They cannot say one thing, do completely the opposite, and expect to have credibility.

The Conservatives said they were concerned about Hockey Canada. The NDP shares those concerns. Members from all parties share those concerns. Why would the Conservatives be the party that blocks the vote that would allow us to actually have those hearings next Monday and Wednesday? There is nothing on the committee business yet for next Monday, when we could be hearing from Hockey Canada or from the Minister of Sport. However, because of the irresponsible Conservative actions, we will be listening to another Conservative filibuster—