Debates of June 10th, 2022

Government Business No. 16—Proceedings on Bill C-11

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

moved:

That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, shall be disposed of as follows:

(a) during consideration of the bill by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage,

(i) the committee shall have the first priority for the use of House resources for committee meetings,

(ii) amendments to the bill, including from independent members, shall be submitted to the clerk of the committee by 11:59 p.m. on June 13, 2022, and distributed to committee members in both official languages by 9:00 a.m. on June 14, 2022,

(iii) the committee shall proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of the bill no later than 11:59 a.m. on June 14, 2022,

(iv) suggested amendments filed by independent members pursuant to subparagraph (a)(ii) shall be deemed to have been proposed during the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill,

(v) if the committee has not completed its clause-by-clause consideration of the bill by 9:00 p.m. on June 14, 2022, all remaining amendments submitted to the committee shall be deemed moved, and the Chair shall put the question, forthwith and successively without further debate, on all remaining clauses and amendments submitted to the committee, as well as each and every question necessary to dispose of the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill,

(vi) a member of the committee may report the bill to the House by depositing it with the Clerk of the House, who shall notify the House leaders of the recognized parties and independent members;

(b) not more than one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the bill at report stage, and that, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders that day, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment; and

(c) on the day the bill is considered at the third reading stage, the ordinary hour of daily adjournment shall be midnight, and that, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders that day, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement]

Mr. Speaker, I am truly disappointed to have to be speaking to a programming motion today. I am disappointed because I truly believe in the committee process. I believe that House committees do really important work. I believe they are the heart of how bills get improved, the place where members from all parties give detailed advice to the government on studies and do detailed studies of legislation.

In the first four years when I was an MP, I had the true pleasure of chairing the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We had really tough bills that we tackled, ones that involved issues like medically assisted dying, recognizing gender identity and gender expression in the Canadian Human Rights Act, and the most significant reforms to the Divorce Act and the Criminal Code in decades. We heard from witnesses for many hours and we studied amendments, sometimes hundreds of amendments, and yet, in each and every case, nobody ever tried to stop the process.

The committee agreed on how many witnesses we would hear from, and once that ended, clause-by-clause would start. Each amendment was properly discussed, dealt with and voted on, and we moved on and returned the bill to the House. This applied to bills where there was a philosophical difference between the different members of the committee from different parties, such as medically assisted dying. It also applied to bills where the members of the committee from all other parties disagreed with the government on the bill, such as genetic discrimination, which was recently upheld by the Supreme Court. Committee members worked together. I see my friend from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, and he was part of that committee and knows how well we worked together. We treated each other with respect, and the committee respected the process. Everyone debated, a vote happened and the majority will was respected.

In the case of Bill C-11, this is not what is happening at committee. In fact, this bill is meeting a fate similar to that of its predecessor, Bill C-10. Having been a member of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, in both cases, I know we have been treated to some members using the committee rules in a way to stop us from getting to clause-by-clause to try to improve the bill.

At committee, members have the right to speak to motions as long as they want, provided they do not stray too far from the topic. As a result, we have been blocked from ever voting on a motion to move to clause-by-clause, even though it is the clear wish of the majority of the members of the committee to do so. Based on what I have seen at committee, it is abundantly clear to me that there is no desire on the part of some committee members to ever allow clause-by-clause to happen on the bill. The members propose motions, amendments and subamendments, but never allow any of them to actually come to a vote. This is truly unfortunate, because if the goal is to improve legislation and propose and support amendments to improve the bill, we need to discuss and debate and vote on those amendments. We need to see those amendments. That is the way things are done constructively.

Those members using the filibuster to stop the committee from reaching clause-by-clause are certainly following the rules. Therefore, much as I would prefer that we not have to do this, other members have the right to follow other House rules to move us to clause-by-clause, because if we do not receive instructions from the House, we will never get there ourselves. Let me be clear: If any members think the bill needs to be improved, they should want us to get to clause-by-clause so that they can propose amendments, the country can hear those amendments and we can vote on those amendments. Let us try to get there.

As a result, the motion before us would provide the committee with priority for House resources so that we can sit outside of our standard hours. It proposes that amendments need to be submitted by 11:59 p.m. on June 13, which is a full 10 days after the original date that was proposed for those amendments to be submitted and is eminently reasonable. All members of the committee are certainly already in a position where they have their amendments prepared, or can have their amendments prepared by Monday.

The motion then proposes that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause deliberations no later than June 14, in the morning, and provides at least nine hours for the committee to consider amendments before the amendments are deemed moved and submitted. The reason for this time limit is, once again, to prevent filibustering of each amendment. The goal would be to actually have a constructive discussion and vote on each amendment, and not spend nine hours filibustering the first amendment we discuss. Sections (b) and (c) of the motion then discuss how the bill would be treated at report stage and third reading.

If we want the bill to get to clause-by-clause consideration by the committee and not to be unreasonably filibustered, I feel we have no alternative but to do this. Therefore, I support this motion.

Now let me speak to the importance of this bill to many Canadians.

Bill C-11 addresses an important imbalance by requiring online audio and video broadcasting services to contribute to the achievement of important cultural policy objectives in the same way that traditional broadcasters always have. As early as the 1990s, concerns were raised about the potential for online streaming to disrupt the broadcast sector. An early decision was made not to place requirements on online streaming services then, given the relatively limited impact of those services at the time. We should remember that broadcasting regulation only applies where it has a material impact on the broadcasting sector.

Today, the rationale to exempt online players simply no longer stands. The world of broadcasting has changed. We all know this. We regularly turn to online streaming services such as Netflix, Spotify, Crave, CBC Gem and Club Illico to access our music and television, in addition to more traditional services like radio and cable.

Times have changed. It has taken us over 20 years, but online streaming services are now the method through which a growing majority of Canadians access their content. There has been a drastic shift in Canada’s broadcasting sector, which has directly impacted the level of support for Canadian programming and talent. Jobs are threatened. Continuing to regulate online and traditional broadcasters differently is not fair, and it is not sustainable. It is putting the support system for Canadian stories and music at risk.

To explain how modernizing the act will create sustainable funding for our cultural industries, it is important to look at how transformative digital disruption has been for broadcasting in Canada.

Let us recall how things were at the beginning of Canadian broadcasting. Radio stations and TV channels, as well as cable and satellite distribution companies, had to be Canadian owned and licenced. They were allowed, and still are, of course, to show foreign programs or carry American channels. In return for participating in Canada's broadcasting system and accessing our domestic market, they were required to fund, acquire or broadcast Canadian programs. They were also required to make programs accessible to Canadians and contribute to the creation of Canadian programming, including original programming in French.

Over time, broadcasters' demand for Canadian programs increased. The system was working as intended, and domestic creative industries flourished. Thousands of Canadians found careers in broadcasting as journalists, producers, actors, writers, directors, singers, makeup artists, set designers, showrunners and so much more. There was upskilling in Canada's cultural industries and investment in production clusters. We became known for our creative and technical talent.

Broadcasting plays a key role in supporting Canada’s creative industries and evolving cultural identity. The Canadian broadcasting, film and video, and music and sound recording sectors are also important economic drivers. They contribute about $14 billion to Canada’s GDP and accounted for over 160,000 jobs in 2019.

The online streaming act would build on the economic and social benefits of the Broadcasting Act. It is about ensuring the continued viability of the Canadian broadcasting system. It is also about securing our cultural sovereignty. Canada is home to continuous innovation and emerging talent. It is imperative that we support our creators and creative industries, and this requires that all broadcasters in Canada compete on an equal footing. We must bring the online streaming services into the system.

As an artifact of outdated legislation, online broadcasters are not required to support Canadian music and storytelling or any other important broadcasting objective. As the revenues of traditional radio and television broadcasters stagnate and decline, so too will the level of support for Canadian music and stories, and for the creative professionals behind them.

This is not right. The implications for our broadcasting system, which is the bulwark of Canadian cultural expression, are grave. Canadian broadcasters have responded by cutting costs, and that has had a real impact on their service to Canadians, on their contribution to Canadian culture and on good middle-class jobs. As Canadians, we would be the poorer for not seeing homegrown talent supported and more diversity on screen and in song. Previous generations enjoyed Canadian programs knowing that others across the country were sharing a similar experience, and they are important for our culture and our cultural industries.

We are not alone. Countries across the world are making moves to protect and promote their cultural sovereignty. Unlike others, we share our borders with a dominating force in the realm of content creation.

What matters most, what matters now, is that Canadian voices, perspectives and stories remain relevant, heard and groundbreaking. The online streaming act is needed to achieve greater diversity in the broadcasting system and ensure the long-term viability of our broadcasting sector.

The online streaming act is not meant to create winners and losers or promote one platform rather than another. The goal is to enable the creative sector to keep evolving. Regardless of how Canadians access their content, they should be able to see themselves in stories and songs that reflect their experience and their communities.

The Broadcasting Act of 1991 got us to this point. Bill C‑11 will move us forward. We cannot bury our heads in the sand and hope that our Canadian stories and unique perspectives will be shared without the protection and supports provided by the online streaming act. That will not work.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, normally I quite enjoy my interactions with the member opposite, but I have to say that I am quite disturbed and quite disgusted by this measure.

We started with the fact that the heritage committee would get first dibs on all House resources, and we are studying some very important things in various committees today. The one I share with the member opposite, the operations committee, is studying the largest procurement in the government's history, which will be over $200 billion. We have had that committee cancelled because of a lack of resources. We are studying, right now, in another committee the invocation of the Emergencies Act. It is the very first time this has been inflicted on the Canadian people, and we have seen members opposite caught out on misinformation about the invocation of the act. However, these are all going to be pushed aside so that the government can censor this Parliament and censor opposition on a censorship bill.

I am wondering this. How can the member possibly stand in the House and tell Canadians, and tell the House, that this censoring of Parliament is more important than the study on shipbuilding, more important than the study on the invocation of the Emergencies Act and all of these other items?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, let me correct the hon. member: This bill has nothing to do with censorship. Freedom of speech is protected in this country under section 2, and it is very clear that freedom of speech is protected under this bill.

Second, this bill would not be necessary except for the fact that members of the hon. member's party have continued to filibuster the committee, preventing us from ever getting to a vote on any of the many motions, amendments and subamendments the Conservatives are making. In meeting after meeting, and now I have seen it on Bill C-10 and Bill C-11, their end goal is for the committee not to be able to get to clause-by-clause. I think this frustration is shared not only by the Liberal members of the committee, but also by the NDP and Bloc members of the committee.

In the end, we are doing something that is asking the House to instruct the committee to do its job and get to clause-by-clause, so it is actually very democratic and parliamentary.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank and congratulate my colleague. He is a member of Parliament representing a riding in Quebec, which has a single official language, French. The riding he represents is also in Canada, which has two official languages, French and English. He gave about 10% of his speech in French, so I want to congratulate him, truly.

I am wondering whether my colleague is not a little embarrassed. We have been talking about Bill C-11 for two years now, if we include its predecessor, Bill C-10. We in the Bloc Québécois were ready and worked very hard to move this bill forward. The hon. member for Drummond worked very hard and was even congratulated by the Minister of Canadian Heritage for his work in committee on this bill.

Before the election, the Bloc Québécois was even ready and willing to vote in favour of time allocation on Bill C-10, which it never does. We normally oppose time allocation, because we want democracy to work and we do not want to shut down debate. We were ready, but then an election came along, and Bill C-10 was postponed indefinitely. Now we have Bill C-11 before us.

The government has hurriedly cobbled together a motion that sort of paves the way for us to maybe pass this bill.

Is my colleague not a little embarrassed that after all those debates the Liberals prorogued Parliament a year and a half ago and called an election? Now they are throwing this motion on the table two weeks before the end of the session and telling us that we must adopt this motion or Bill C-11 will not be passed. For artists, that is shameful.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by stating that I am not the least bit embarrassed to speak my mother tongue in the House of Commons. As an MP, I have the right, as do all the other MPs, to speak both of Canada's official languages. There is an anglophone community in Quebec, even if the hon. member does not like it. I will always protect the rights of francophone minorities outside Quebec, Quebec francophones and Quebec anglophones.

Also, no, I am not at all embarrassed, and I would advise my colleague to speak to the member for Drummond, who did very good work at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage and in the House. I believe that he, too, is very frustrated with what is happening at committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my committee colleague. What he said is true: For weeks and weeks, the Conservatives have been obstructing everything. They basically broke the committee.

To me, the saddest part of this whole story happened on Wednesday when the Conservatives blocked us from holding two meetings next week to talk about serious allegations of sexual assault involving Hockey Canada.

I wanted to ask my colleague this. We were given the serious allegations around Hockey Canada, and the motion that I brought forward for Monday and Wednesday hearings, and the Conservatives were refusing even to have those hearings into what are serious allegations. Does it mean, according to my colleague, that the Conservatives have really broken the committee and that is why this motion is so important?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me thank the member for New Westminster—Burnaby for his always constructive work at committee. It is always a pleasure to work with him.

Second, I want to say that I carefully avoided in my speech even referring to what political party or what people were not allowing us to move forward. I never mentioned a word about the Conservatives once in my speech.

The end result here is that the member for New Westminster—Burnaby has, on multiple occasions, proposed motions, amendments and subamendments to have us move to the Hockey Canada study at next Monday's meeting and next Wednesday's meeting. The reason we never were able to actually get there was because Conservative members filibustered those discussions. I am sure they want to hear from Hockey Canada. I am sure that all of us want to hear from Hockey Canada. We all agree what an important study that is, but the Conservative members on the committee do not want to get to the clause-by-clause consideration on Bill C-11. Because we had said that we would hear them in parallel, the Conservative members did not want to get to a vote on that.

It is frustrating, because I know that we all want to get to the Hockey Canada study as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, what is frustrating is the mischaracterization. The original motion on Hockey Canada actually came from the Conservative Party, just to make sure the record is straight.

As a person who has managed to sit in a couple of these meetings recently, I found the presentation by the member interesting because he spoke mostly about getting to clause-by-clause. What he did not talk about was the fact that the committee is in charge of its own destiny. Most committees will adjust their speaking and hearing schedules of witnesses as the testimony comes. This committee refuses to do so. The reality is that there are a lot more Canadians who want to speak on this bill. It is a part of the democratic process to hear from Canadians, so that during clause-by-clause consideration there will be better amendments. Perhaps that is something the government does not understand, because this is a very flawed bill.

I would like to ask the member this. In his speaking notes, he referred to content creators being able to access various funds to improve and support their quality like traditional broadcasters. Where exactly in the bill does it describe how a content creator is able to do that?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the hon. member is going to let me speak to the question of witnesses.

Originally, three of the four parties at the committee thought that a certain number of hours would be sufficient to hear from witnesses. The Conservative members then proposed 20 hours, which was more than the other parties thought needed to be given to witnesses, given that many of these witnesses had already been there for Bill C-10. However, the rest of the members of the committee agreed to accede to the request from the Conservatives and provide 20 hours to hear from witnesses. At that point, the members from the other parties felt that we had heard from a sufficient number of witnesses and the Conservative members disagreed. The majority of the committee believed we had heard from a sufficient number of witnesses. As a result, instead of just coming to a vote and deciding by majority whether we had heard from a sufficient number of witnesses, there was a filibuster of each and every motion to try to move to clause-by-clause on the vote.

If the hon. member had been there at the first meeting, he would know that was actually the history of the committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert reminded us that there was a time allocation motion on the former Bill C‑10. We supported that motion insofar as it was a bit more “step by step”. We were trying to break the impasse at committee to be able to continue deliberating, including in the House or on other aspects of the bill.

However, the motion before us today deadlocks the entire debate when the situation is much less urgent. This is not the eve of an election, unless my colleague knows something we do not.

I understand the urgency of resolving the issue, especially when we think of the money traditional media is losing. However, I would like to understand how we ended up with this sledgehammer of a motion when that was not even the case last time for Bill C‑10.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Saint-Jean, who always speaks so eloquently in the House.

I think that what it boils down to is that this decision was made after we saw what was happening in committee. I truly believe that, were it not for this motion, the committee would not be able to do the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill because it is always being blocked in everything it tries to do whenever it comes time to vote on anything.

Unfortunately, the House had to insist that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of this bill, and that is why it has come to this.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to open by sharing a quote, which states:

We need to discuss why the government does not listen at committee stage to anything anyone says. It does not accept any amendments from anyone at all, and then it complains that the opposition refuses to allow public consultation.

The quote goes on to say:

We are absolutely not opposed, but we think we should listen to experts and to people who tell the minister what the government should be doing with the bill, but nobody listens in this government.

Do members know who said that? It was the member for Vancouver Centre, the current chair of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. What she said in 2011, we agree with. The current government does not listen. The government does not accept amendments. The government does not accept the testimony and advice of digital-first creators and experts on communications and on the Internet. The government does not listen.

We have heard a lot from the opposition parties that we have had 20 hours of witnesses. The fact is that this committee did not begin studying this bill until May 24: That was 17 days ago. Today, we have Motion No. 16. In the House lately, we are all used to time allocation and closure motions, but this is not just a time allocation motion. This is not just a closure motion. This is a guillotine motion on steroids. This is a motion that not only forces this bill through committee stage and clause-by-clause, but also through the final stages in the House itself. It provides for only one day at report stage, one single day, and there is no guarantee that day has any more than an hour or an hour and a half of debate in the House.

Report stage, as it currently stands, would likely fall on next Friday, meaning that the total time the House would have to debate it, at its very maximum, would be about 150 minutes. There would be 150 minutes to discuss report stage amendments to the largest and most comprehensive updates to the Broadcasting Act in more than 30 years. The government thinks that two and a half hours in the House is sufficient to do that.

As Her Majesty's loyal opposition, we have a duty to play our role: to criticize when warranted, to make amendments and to approve when necessary. That is what we, as Her Majesty's loyal opposition, want to do. We have been clear throughout the process and the debate on this bill and its predecessor bill in the previous Parliament, Bill C-10, that we believe the Broadcasting Act needs to be updated.

The Broadcasting Act dates to 1991. It is a time when VCRs were king, when we had to borrow VHS tapes from the grocery store or the corner store and when the member for South Shore—St. Margarets claims he had hair. I will look for photographic evidence of that. I will point out, because this is relevant, the member was a senior staff member in that government of the day when this legislation first came through. If we consult Hansard from that time and review the comments and commentary by the minister at the time, Minister Masse, we will see that in that time and at that place, the legislation to update the Broadcasting Act and the lead-up to 1991, when it took effect, was done with the broad-based support and consultation not only of members of the House, but also of Canadians. It recognized the challenges that were being faced at that time by broadcasters, by Canadians and by individuals who wanted to see Canadian content creations from across our country.

We want to see the major exhibitions and creations of Quebec creators, and we want them to succeed here and around the world.

We want to see that success, and that is why we are not opposed to necessary updates to the Broadcasting Act. In fact, in our last election platform in 2021, during that unnecessary election that gave us a repeat minority Parliament, we committed to updating the Broadcasting Act, but we committed to doing so in a way that ensured digital first creators were able to succeed and that did not unfairly regulate user-generated content. Now, here we are today with Motion No. 16, which is forcing this bill through Parliament.

I wish I could say I was angry. I wish I could say I was mad. I am not angry, and I am not mad, but I am disappointed. I am disappointed the government would use such an arbitrary and draconian measure as Motion No. 16.

My friend from Edmonton West pointed this out, but it is worth reaffirming what this motion would actually do when it comes to committee resources. Motion No. 16 states “the committee shall have the first priority for the use of House resources for committee meetings”. Members in the House know the hard work interpreters do each and every day. I know sometimes I have difficulty understanding myself in one language, let alone having that translated and interpreted to a second language. The interpreters in this place and in committee do exceptional work interpreting into English and French each and every day, and they deserve our respect.

Over the past two years, the strain and workplace injuries the interpreters in this place have experienced are unacceptable. It is entirely unacceptable. The two official languages of this place, the two official languages of this country, must be respected. It is the interpreters who enable that. It is the interpreters who allow that to happen. However, each and every day we see challenges with resources. We see challenges with the Translation Bureau being able to provide us with sufficient numbers of people who can interpret at committee.

Under this motion, under Motion No. 16, only one committee shall have priority for committee resources. Only one committee shall be able to have its meetings occur no matter what, which is the Canadian heritage committee, so the government can force through its flawed pieces of legislation. No other committee can have that priority.

My friend from South Shore—St. Margarets, on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, would not have priority for committee meetings, and meetings keep being cancelled. My friend from Elgin—Middlesex—London, who chairs the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, would not have priority for House resources. Her committee meetings would be cancelled if the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage needed those resources.

My friend from Edmonton West on the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates has already noted his committees have been cancelled, when they are looking at multi-billion dollar procurement. Those meetings could again be cancelled so the government can push through its repeat legislation, Bill C-11, which was formerly Bill C-10.

If it were only that matter alone, I would say it was sufficient to vote down this flawed motion, but it gets worse. Not only does this motion have a negative impact on each and every other committee, but it also rushes through what ought to be a deliberative process. Subparagraph (ii) states, “amendments to the bill, including from independent members, shall be submitted to the clerk of the committee by 11:59 p.m. on June 13, 2022, and distributed to committee members in both official languages by 9:00 a.m. on June 14, 2022”.

I am sure we are all probably thinking, well, that is Monday, and today is Friday. How does the government expect this motion to take effect by Monday and have amendments due by Monday night? Not only is this a guillotine motion, but this is a guillotine motion that will be guillotined. By the end of business today, a minister of the Crown will stand in their place and state that a minister of the Crown will introduce closure. A minister of the Crown will stand in this place and state that agreement could not be reached and closure will be necessary on Monday.

On Monday, the first order of business, when orders of the day are called, will be a closure motion on a closure motion on steroids, which means that debate will not be further adjourned and that, at 8:00 p.m. on Monday evening, the bells will ring. The Speaker will call in the members, the bells will ring, and at 8:30 p.m. on Monday night, the House will pronounce its judgment on Motion No. 16.

At midnight, under the terms of this motion, amendments would be due, which would be three and a half hours after this motion passes. Amendments on the first update to the Broadcasting Act in 31 years, a complicated and complex matter, would be due in three and half hours.

The government likes to talk about work-life balance, but we, as politicians, are used to this. We are elected. We are well compensated. We are ready and able to work hard, but let us talk about the administration staff of this place. Let us talk about the clerks of our committee, who are now being told that at midnight on Monday night they have to be ready, able and available to accept amendments from each recognized party and from any independent member. This is at 11:59 p.m. on Monday night, and then they have to ensure that each of those amendments are then distributed by 9:00 a.m. the next morning to members of the committee. That is nine hours and one minute, through the dead of night, for the committee clerk and the committee staff to make that happen.

Members, the employees of the House and the employees of Parliament deserve better. They should not be forced into that situation.

It gets worse. After receiving those amendments at 9:00 a.m. on Tuesday, June 14, and this is from the motion, “the committee shall proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of the bill no later than 11:59 a.m. on June 14, 2022”.

Committee members will receive the amendments from all parties and from independent members at 9:00 a.m., and then two hours and 59 minutes later, they will proceed to clause by clause. We will be forced, as parliamentarians and as members of the committee, to pronounce judgment on potentially dozens of amendments that we will have seen for the first time only hours before.

[An hon. member]

That is shameful abuse.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is shameful abuse.

We as parliamentarians owe it to our constituents, our stakeholders and Canadians from coast to coast to do our due diligence, evaluate amendments, debate amendments and ensure the amendments being proposed achieve what is in the best interests of Canadian creators, Canadian viewers and Canadian consumers.

Could members do that, with dozens of amendments and dozens of clauses, in two hours and 59 minutes? It is not acceptable. It is unreasonable, and it is not possible.

I will tell us what could happen. What could happen is the same thing that happened with Bill C-10, where the Liberals tried to force through amendments that do not improve the bill but in fact worsened the bill. That is what happened with Bill C-10. The Liberals, out of the blue, moved an amendment that took away the exception for user-generated content.

As an aside, we see in this bill, and I will talk about it a little later, an exception to the exception for user-generated content, so the Liberals have clearly not quite learned their lesson when it comes to user-generated content and the importance of protecting it.

Here is another issue: We have the unique situation where there are members of the House who are not represented at committee. I am speaking about independent members, members from unaffiliated parties, such as members from the Green Party, who do not have the opportunity, or I would say the privilege, to sit on committees.

In traditional times, those members are able to come to committee, any committee reviewing pieces of legislation, and submit amendments and move those amendments during the clause by clause.

This programming motion, this guillotine motion on steroids, in subparagrah (iv) says, “suggested amendments filed by independent members pursuant to subparagraph (a)(ii) shall be deemed to have been proposed during the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill”.

It says “deemed to have been proposed”. The member for Kitchener Centre and the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands will not even have the opportunity to appear before committee and move their amendments to this piece of legislation, which is the largest update to the Broadcasting Act in over three decades.

This is like a bad novel. It keeps getting worse and worse. Obviously, it is a bad novel written in a foreign country because Canadians only produce great novels, but this is a bad novel because it keeps getting worse as we go. Subparagraph (v) states:

if the committee has not completed its clause-by-clause consideration of the bill by 9:00 p.m. on June 14, 2022, all remaining amendments submitted to the committee shall be deemed moved, and the Chair shall put the question, forthwith and successively without further debate, on all remaining clauses and amendments submitted to the committee, as well as each and every question necessary to dispose of the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill

That means no debate. Not just limited debate, but not a word of debate on a clause-by-clause or amendments at clause-by-clause. Our job, as parliamentarians and as elected officials, is to debate legislation. It is to debate legislation on behalf of our constituents and on behalf of Canadians.

Under this motion, Motion No. 16, each and every question necessary will be put without debate. It means that we cannot even suggest minor amendments to proposals. We cannot suggest to the Chair that perhaps an amendment may be out of order based on various reasons, including the parent act rule. That would not be possible because this proposal does not provide for it.

This proposal states that there shall be no debate, no debate on the largest update to the Broadcasting Act since 1991. No debate on a piece of legislation that could affect each and every Canadian who listens to music online, watches videos online or creates content that is posted online. There will be no debate on clause-by-clause or amendments after 9:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 14, 2022.

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

What are they afraid of?

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

Mr. Speaker, my friend from South Shore—St. Margarets asks what they are afraid of. The problem is that they are afraid of Canadians. They are afraid of the viewpoints and considerations of Canadians. They are afraid of hearing more testimony from stakeholders.

In the last couple of days alone, we have had requests from dozens of stakeholders, organizations, individuals and businesses that would be directly affected by this bill. We have yet to hear from APTN, the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network, an amazing organization. We have not heard from them at committee on this matter.

I find subparagraph (a)(vi) of this motion intriguing. I find it intriguing because when committee reports and legislation are reported back to the House, who are they normally reported by? I see my friend from Elgin—Middlesex—London, who is a committee chair. When the the Standing Committee on the Status of Women reports back to the House, it is the chair of the committee who does so. The chair of a standing committee reports bills, legislation and reports to the House. Sometimes the vice-chair will have a supplementary or dissenting report, and in rare cases, a vice-chair will report a bill back if the chair of the committee is unavailable. That is the typical traditional process: The chair or the vice-chair of a committee reports a bill back. However, Motion No. 16 expresses non-confidence in the chair of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. It states:

a member of the committee may report the bill to the House by depositing it with the Clerk of the House, who shall notify the House leaders of the recognized parties and independent members

The motion by the government shows non-confidence in the chair of the committee's ability to report the bill to the House.

Not only does the government not have confidence in the chair of its own committee, its own member, but it is not even following the traditional process for submitting reports to the House. Following question period today we will have Routine Proceedings. The rubric of Routine Proceedings includes the tabling of reports from committees. That is the process for tabling a report. Motion No. 16 does not do that. It just says that any member can take the report and give it to the Clerk rather than following the usual practice of the House. I look forward to hearing the justification from Liberal members of the committee as to why they have lost confidence in the member for Vancouver Centre to fulfill her duties as chair of the committee.

That is not the end of the motion. Motion No. 16 would be bad enough if it forced this bill through committee stage and clause-by-clause. However, there is more.

[Philip Lawrence]

There can't be more.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South says there cannot be more, but there is more, unfortunately.

The government has tools available to it in the House to force through legislation. On motions it can use what is called closure, and on pieces of legislation it can use time allocation. That is the traditional process. If Bill C-11 were to be reported back to the House and the government felt that it was not proceeding as fast as it would like, it could move time allocation. However, it did not. At least with time allocation there is an opportunity to put questions to the minister for a period of 30 minutes. It is not a lot and it is not sufficient, but at least there is a process. Motion No. 16 pre-emptively time allocates this piece of legislation before clause-by-clause happens, before the process even begins.

I want to quote paragraph (b) of the motion. It states:

not more than one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the bill at report stage, and that, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders that day, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment

That means one day for Bill C-11 at report stage.

Canadians listening at home may not quite grasp the severity of this provision. In the House, there are certain days of the week when government orders are debated for a lengthy period of time, for multiple hours. Sometimes when the government moves time allocation, it will say five hours. This is still, in my opinion, not enough time for an important piece of legislation, but five hours is more than what is foreseen for this piece of legislation.

If Bill C-11 is called before the House at report stage on a Wednesday afternoon or on a Friday, there will be not more than two and a half hours of debate in the House on each and every report stage amendment that may be brought forward. There is no discussion to extend hours. There is no discussion of additional time for Canadians to hear from their elected representatives.

I know that in my caucus, my Conservative colleagues want to discuss this bill. Many of them have eagerly volunteered to sit in on deliberations at the Canadian heritage committee because they have an interest in this piece of legislation. However, they have not had a chance to speak to it in the House of Commons. Why? It is because at second reading the government moved time allocation and they did not have a chance to speak.

My friend from Cumberland—Colchester is here today listening intently because he wanted to speak and did not have the chance. It is the same for my friend from Beauce. He has not had a chance to speak to this piece of legislation, and neither has my friend from Calgary Signal Hill. Each of them has been denied the opportunity to speak to this bill, and now they will be pre-emptively denied the opportunity to speak to the bill because of the limited time available for it.

That is not all. The final paragraph of this motion time allocates the bill at third reading. Paragraph (c) of Motion No. 16 states:

on the day the bill is considered at the third reading stage, the ordinary hour of daily adjournment shall be midnight, and that, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders that day, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

That means one day of debate for the third and final reading of this piece of legislation.

I will remind members of the House that this bill only got to committee and began the committee process on May 24. Now, less than four weeks later, the government wishes to see this bill arrive at third reading and pass without meaningful debate in this place and without meaningful debate during clause-by-clause in committee.

Earlier this week, the Minister of Canadian Heritage appeared before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. I was in the chair for that meeting, and as members know, the chair does not actively participate in the debate. However, I listened intently to the Minister of Canadian Heritage in his opening comments. He made the comment that when the committee was finished its process, there would be more debate in the House of Commons at report stage, at third reading and then in the Senate. Then, just three days later, on notice on the Order Paper was this guillotine motion, which does not fulfill the minister's commitment to allowing more debate on this bill.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage and I get along very well, so I take him at his word that he was committed to more debate. Unfortunately, the government House leader's failure to manage the legislative agenda of this place means that our colleagues, members of the House, will not have the opportunity to fulfill their duty as parliamentarians, to fulfill their duty to the people they represent.

It is interesting that with the current government, what was old is new again, because in the previous Parliament there was a similar motion. It was Motion No. 10, and it also dealt with a bill, Bill C-10, the predecessor to this bill. It forced Bill C-10 through committee, forced it through the House of Commons and forced it into the Senate.

Had the government actually been committed to passing that piece of legislation, it could have, but something else intervened: the political interests of the Prime Minister. We saw the political ambitions and self-interest of the Prime Minister in his attempt to try to win a majority government during a pandemic, when he and every Liberal member on that side had committed to not calling an election during a pandemic.

They saw an opportunity to try to get their majority, and they did not. However, what happened is that every piece of legislation that was before the House or the Senate died on the Order Paper, including the previous Bill C-10. To hear Liberal members and ministers talk about having to expedite legislation through the House and through committee because it has to get through is simply horse feathers. It is horse feathers because they had an opportunity to do so but killed their own legislation by forcing an unnecessary election, which included the dissolution of Parliament.

However, the Liberals do not learn their lesson. These undemocratic processes keep coming back time and time again, and we have seen this with different pieces of legislation. I know I have heard Liberal MPs talk about the other matters we need to get to. Our Conservative Party put forward a proposal at the heritage committee to prioritize a review of Hockey Canada. We put forward a motion to prioritize the review of the disgusting situation we have learned about from four years ago. That should be our priority at committee. That is what we as parliamentarians should be looking at.

I see that I have one minute before question period, and as I assume I will have time to resume my comments after question period, I will leave with a few interim closing comments.

Canadians expect us to do better. Canadians expect us to review legislation. They expect opposition MPs to improve flawed legislation, and that is what we as Conservative members of Parliament will do. Regardless of the outcome of this motion, we will do what we can to protect Canadians, to support our creators and to ensure that Canadian creators are able to succeed at home and around the globe.

I look forward to resuming after question period.

William Davis Miners' Memorial Day

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to commemorate William Davis Miners' Memorial Day, which is observed every year on June 11 in mining communities across Nova Scotia.

In the spring of 1925, coal miners in Cape Breton went on strike to protest poor working conditions and wages. In response to that strike, the community's access to food, water and electricity was cut off by the company of the day. On June 11, hundreds of brave coal miners took action to restore those essential needs to the community. Unfortunately, 37-year-old William Davis was shot and killed, making the ultimate sacrifice so that those in the community could have a better life.

On Davis Day, mining communities take time to remember William Davis and those who have been lost to mining accidents in mines such as Westray, Springhill, Inverness, No. 26 Colliery in Glace Bay, people like my grandfather, Billy Kelloway, who was killed in No. 20 Colliery in Glace Bay.

In my riding of Cape Breton—Canso and across Nova Scotia, this day serves as a reminder of the determination, the sacrifice, the bravery, the leadership and the resiliency of miners and their families everywhere.

Lotbinière Relay for Life

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was very proud to agree to be the honorary chair for the Canadian Cancer Society Relay for Life in Lotbinière, which will take place on June 11, 2022, in Saint-Apollinaire.

At Relay for Life events, which first began in 1999, participants of all ages gather and take turns walking around a track or path to symbolize the perseverance of those affected by cancer and to send them a message of hope.

The money collected goes toward supporting innovative research projects on all types of cancer, providing the largest support network to help people better manage life with cancer, shaping public health policies, and providing trusted cancer information for all Canadians.

I invite all members to come walk with me at the Lotbinière Relay for Life and to support this noble cause that is very dear to my heart.

Beechville Walkettes

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend a wonderful group in my riding, the Beechville Walkettes, for their commitment to supporting the health and wellness of seniors and of all residents in the community.

This group was started by Beechville resident Paula Blackmore to lead regular neighbourhood walks and encourage folks to get some exercise, socialize across generations, tell jokes and check up on their neighbours. In this way, they are countering social isolation and supporting their older friends and neighbours to age in place with a greater sense of security and support.

Our government recognizes the value of helping seniors age well at home, and that is why I was so happy on Wednesday when I heard the Minister of Seniors launch the age well at home initiative to support the community organizations that provide the services seniors need in order to enjoy their golden years at home.

I encourage all organizations to consider applying for this program, and I want to thank everyone who is working to ensure that our seniors feel safe, valued and supported in our communities.

Alfred-Pellan

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this parliamentary session is coming to a close, and I want to take this opportunity to highlight all the progress made for my constituents in Alfred-Pellan.

In addition to business here in the House, including 165 interventions, 136 votes and eight bills passed, I am pleased with the concrete results we have achieved in Alfred-Pellan, in the form of dozens of thousands of dollars for seniors through the new horizons program, 332 jobs for young people and for 87 businesses and organizations, more than $1.2 million for Canada summer jobs, and more than $11.3 million to build affordable housing, not to mention the neighbourhood parties, community cleanups, walks in support of medical research, support for essential and health care workers, support for our SMEs, and support for our local farmers and producers. There is a long list, but as we are running out of time, I look forward to spending the summer with my constituents in Alfred-Pellan.

Mr. Speaker, I want to wish you and all of my colleagues in the House a good summer.

Opioids

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, across Canada, many are losing loved ones to toxic drug overdoses. Last month, I met with service providers from across my riding, and we discussed a health-based approach to substance abuse and Bill C-216 from the member for Courtenay—Alberni, which was sadly voted down by many Liberals and the Conservatives.

Feedback was clear: Rural and remote communities have very specific challenges. There is a lack of access to basic health care services, compounded by a lack of access to supports for families and for people struggling with substance abuse. There is a lack of affordable housing and often no supportive housing, putting stabilized people at risk of returning to the streets, where it is impossible for them to stay clean. There is a lack of support for families struggling to support their loved ones who suffer from addiction, and the stigma silences and stops addicts and their loved ones from getting access to the help they need.

I want to thank the many organizations that came to speak with me on that day, and I am so grateful for their dedication to saving the lives of Canadians.

BAPS Swaminarayan Research Institute

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the inauguration of the BAPS Swaminarayan Research Institute on the premises of BAPS Hindu Mandir in Toronto last weekend. The June 4 inauguration marks the centenary celebrations of His Holiness Pramukh Swami Maharaj, creator of this famous Hindu mandir.

Under the spiritual leadership of His Holiness Mahant Swami Maharaj and guided by his message of vasudheva kutumbakam, meaning “the entire world is my family”, this research institute is dedicated to advancing quality research, learning and expression of the Hindu heritage, its philosophies and denominations and its affiliated languages, cultures, and rich collection of literature.

As the institute pursues excellence in research, I am hopeful that we will see a flourishing of the values of peace, love and harmony that are central to Hindu practice and tradition. We are proud of the achievements of the Hindu community here in Canada and of the success that has enabled them to grow their work through the creation of this institute as it begins its work.