Debates of June 10th, 2022

Instruction to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage

[Diane Lebouthillier, Liberal, Gaspésie—Les-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am tabling the government's responses to Questions Nos. 500 to 506.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question for the opposition House leader pertains to the committee's work. I had the honour of being in a couple of committee meetings and proposed a few amendments. One of those amendments goes to the discussion we are talking about. It was to have the minister appear before committee. However, the Liberal majority challenged the ruling of the chair, who called it in order. In response to that, even though I had the floor, the chair forgot that I had the floor and said that she must have blacked out, which is one of the challenges of this virtual Parliament.

In terms of the functioning of the committee, could the opposition House leader comment on the ineffectiveness of committee chairs participating in that manner?

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

Mr. Speaker, we are seeing a strong level of dysfunction going on among all committees because of the hybrid and virtual aspect of this Parliament and the decision to continue it. We are seeing that committees are being cancelled. We are seeing situations like the one the hon. member talked about. This has to stop. It is having a sincere and profound impact on our democracy, and it is contributing to a decline in it.

[The Acting Speaker, Green, Mike Morrice]

The hon. President of the Treasury Board is rising on a point of order.

Notice of Closure Motion

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that, with respect to consideration of Government Business No. 16, at the next sitting of the House, a Minister of the Crown shall move, pursuant to Standing Order 57, that debate not be further adjourned.

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

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I just want the record to reflect that the member for Ottawa—Vanier just introduced a guillotine motion on a guillotine motion.

[The Acting Speaker, Green, Mike Morrice]

I do not believe that is a point of order. The hon. member for Brampton North.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Instruction to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by addressing the opposition member's concern about wanting to spend time on amendments to Bill C-11. I think that is a valid concern, and I believe that the committee has had ample time. What we in the government benches, and what I as a member, would like to see is that we get to the amendment stage, that we get to clause-by-clause and that amendments are put forward, and that we are able to discuss those amendments and then vote on them. That is the crux of the issue that we are looking at right now.

As has been mentioned here before as well, the committee and the members at the committee had agreed to 20 hours of witnesses. The members of the committee agreed to this: It was not the House or the government. It was the members of the committee. They have, since then, seen over 20 hours of witnesses.

I believe, from the debate that we hear from the Conservatives, that they have ample reasons to bring amendments forward. That is their right. We would like to see those amendments. We would like to discuss them and vote on those amendments. The previous motion, and now the opposition's motion, just do not seem to make sense. It seems like these are more delay tactics, rather than getting to the amendment stage, which we would desperately like to see.

There was also the issue of Hockey Canada brought up, and that the Conservative members on the committee would like to get to that issue, as well.

I would like to clarify that the members on the committee I have spoken to have said that there was an offer made to study that in parallel, and an offer to even sit on non-sitting days and get that important work done, but there was a filibuster by the Conservative members on the committee and nothing got done. The issue of Hockey Canada was not dealt with, nor was the issue of Bill C-11 thoroughly dealt with, so I really would request that the members reconsider this motion and really get to the stage that is important for all Canadians and especially our artists and content creators.

Another thing I would like to touch upon is the constant referral to the bill limiting freedom of expression or freedom of speech, or somehow being anti-democratic. It is absolutely not that. For decades, our system here has guaranteed creation for Canadian content creators when it comes to TV and radio: all of those platforms that we grew up with.

This is nothing new. We have always had legislation in place that made sure the CRTC was there to oversee our content, our networks and our cable providers. This is now just an extension of that.

There has not been an update to this legislation for a long time, and we know that today not many of our constituents, and probably not many of us in the House, are watching content in the traditional way we grew up watching it. We are watching it on streaming devices; therefore, it is crucial that we make sure that our laws are applied equally to radio and television, as they should be, and to streaming networks such as YouTube, Crave, Netflix and so many different networks that are out there that we are consuming content from.

I think it is really important that we make sure that these networks contribute to Canadian content, and make sure that bilingualism is respected in the country, as well as our indigenous communities and heritage. Without having these types of regulations to begin with, we would have missed out on incredible content that we have grown up watching.

Kim's Convenience is a more recent show that I know many of my friends appreciate very much. It has allowed Canadians to experience the diversity that we have here in Canada, and to share true Canadian stories that we can relate to.

That is a story, in particular, that I can relate to because of the immigrant struggle that my parents faced: having a small business while keeping their culture, staying connected to their roots and raising a young child within the Canadian context. It is a brilliant show, as is Schitt's Creek. Many members have probably appreciated the story that it has brought of inclusion and acceptance. Those stories are really important. They are the stories we want to be able to share with Canadians and make sure these platforms do their part in sharing those stories.

That is the crux of what this legislation is about. It is not about muzzling people or making sure their content does not get out. It is about commercial content. I want to be very clear that commercial content is different from user content. For instance, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, just the other day, put a video on Twitter talking about how Bill C-11 is a scary piece of legislation that is somehow going to remove the very video that he put on Twitter to talk about this legislation. Of course, that video is still there and even after this legislation is passed, it will still be there because this legislation has made an exception and carved out freedoms for those who are creating user content. On any social media platforms such as YouTube or Facebook, which many members of Parliament use, those types of posts and content will not be affected.

This bill would make sure that the CRTC and any of its advice does not muzzle freedom of speech or impose any restrictions on the people who—

[The Acting Speaker, Green, Mike Morrice]

I apologize for interrupting the member for Brampton North. There are members having various conversations who may want to ask questions of the member. I would encourage those having conversations to take them outside and if they have questions, they should save them for questions and comments.

The member for Brampton North has 12 minutes left.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have spoken about some of the great benefits that the bill brings. As the debate continues today, I want to hear from the members opposite as to what the issues are that they have with the bill exactly, because I believe there has been confusion around this issue. We have tried to make it clear. I do not know how much clearer we need to make it that this applies to commercial content and does not apply to user content.

In determining whether content is commercial, it has been set out in this piece of legislation that the regulator needs to evaluate it based on three elements: First, if the content is monetized. I know this would be of some concern because there is user content that can be monetized, but there are other elements and factors that they also have to weigh in connection with that. Second, they need to weigh whether the content exists on another non-social media platform. A non-social media platform would be something such as Netflix that we basically do not interact with. We are just consuming the content that is on there. If there is a show that YouTube is streaming as either paid content or unpaid content, and at the same time Netflix is also streaming it, that is a distinction to be made because that will get us closer to the definition of commercial content.

The third thing the regulator would be looking at is whether the content has a unique international standard code. The example would be a song that is uploaded to YouTube with an international standard music number. We know that many people are now consuming their music not from the radio or CDs, or from downloaded music or records for that matter. They are consuming it from these streaming platforms, but this is commercially produced music and content.

It is only fair that if the radio stations that are playing this content today, and have been all along, are playing by a certain set of rules, then those streaming platforms such as Spotify, Apple Music and YouTube Music also have the same rules applied to them. That is fair, and I think all members in the House should agree that one set of laws in Canada should not be different for one group of people and different for another. We should make sure that the laws are the same.

When I was first elected to the House, my father was a taxi driver. I remember many people from the taxi community. Many live in my riding. For some reason, I have a large number of constituents who are taxi drivers. They came to me and said that Uber did not have to pay HST, yet taxi drivers that provide the same service had to pay HST on their fares. I thought this was not fair. Why was one service provider, which provides exactly the same service, operating under one set of rules? Another service provider was promoting itself as being a digital company and providing the service slightly differently. However, it was not teletransporting people. Quite frankly, it was doing the exact same thing. It was picking up riders in cars and dropping them off at another location.

I brought this point up, and our Minister of Finance took that very seriously and said our laws and regulations should apply equally. I would say that Bill C-11 is a very similar situation. He quickly resolved that issue, and now Uber drivers also have to pay HST on their fares. That was justice served to the ride-share and taxi community. That is what we are trying to do in this bill by making sure that our regulations are applied across the board, equally and fairly.

Once again, I am not saying that any piece of legislation is completely perfect. There could be some gaps or some holes. We want to make sure we get the support of the Conservative Party, the Bloc, the NDP and the Green Party to make sure we fill those gaps and those holes. We want to see the amazing amendments they will hopefully bring forward if we ever get to that point.

However, what we are so tired of is the constant delay. It is not democracy. The members are saying that this is democracy, but delay and cutting off the ability to discuss in a way that is productive and constructive is different from saying, “We are not going to let this legislation see the light of day.” That is what I would argue the opposition has been trying to do.

There are many stakeholders who are eager to see this legislation pass. They feel their content has not been given the prominence it deserves. They have not been able to get the support they once did when their content was regularly watched on television. Now all these new content creators, and even the old, are not getting the financial support they used to get. We want to be able to continue telling those amazing stories that we were once able to on these new streaming platforms, because that is where people are consuming.

I want to further contrast the spreading of misinformation that has been going on on social media and Twitter. Members need to be responsible. They need to properly read and understand this piece of legislation before guiding their constituents, before responding to correspondence from their offices, and before putting stuff up on their social media. They should be giving Canadians the proper information.

This bill has nothing to do with what Canadians say on social media. Obviously, the members opposite are free to say whatever they like on their social media platforms, but I would just request that they be responsible members and make sure that the information they give Canadians about what is in this piece of legislation is accurate.

If the Conservatives really want to go and record themselves saying whatever they would like about this piece of legislation or on my speech in the House today, they are free to go and do so, and even once this piece of legislation is passed, they would still be free to do so. That is the clarity that Canadians really need to understand.

I do not want to see a repeat of what happened the last time around, when Conservatives sided with web giants instead of with Canadian artists and creators. I constantly hear from the opposition benches that they are here to be the voices of the people of Canada and the voices of their constituents. Unfortunately, I am afraid that what is happening is they are benefiting these huge, multi-billion dollar corporations, these huge web giants that do not have the same challenges that our local cable stations do. We want to bring fairness to the system.

Furthermore, I would also like to say that clause 12 of the online streaming legislation explicitly states that any regulation the CRTC imposes on platforms through the Broadcasting Act cannot infringe on Canadians' freedom of expression on social media. Clause 12 should cause Canadians to give a sigh of relief, because I know a lot of the confusing messaging they have been receiving has led them to believe that this could somehow infringe on their freedom of speech.

I can assure Canadians that this piece of legislation is not made to do that. It is made to make sure that our artists in Canada and our content creators have the ability to express the stories that they would like to share with Canadians and the world about our wonderful country and about the experiences our people have in Canada.

I know that many members in the House support this piece of legislation, so I think it is quite unfair to hold it up any longer. We have seen it in the previous Parliament. We want to make sure that all members have the right to amend this piece of legislation, not just in this place but also in the other place as well.

Let us vote and get this show on the road. Let us make sure that the senators in the other place also have equal opportunity to put input into this piece of legislation. Let us get this work done for Canadians, for our artists and for our creators.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is great to see you in the Chair. You are doing a fine job.

The member just asked that we vote and get this done. My question to her is this. Why is she currently filibustering this motion? The House leader of the opposition moved this motion, spoke for about four minutes and hoped that we could have a vote on it. What the government members are now doing is filibustering the motion to prevent the House of Commons from voting on it. The House leader spoke for only four minutes and now the government members are filibustering the motion.

I am not surprised, because the member was the chair of PROC when the Liberal members spent 100 days filibustering that committee to prevent the Prime Minister from having to testify, trying to save him rather than getting the work done for Canadians.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am appalled by the allegation of the member opposite. I have not even had the opportunity in the past to really delve into this piece of legislation. I want to make sure there is debate in this House. I know the members would not want to muzzle me and are open to our freely expressing ourselves in this place.

The member opposite has also done for hours on end what he is accusing me of doing in this moment. Plus, it is not the job of the House to let committees know what they should or should not be doing. The committee decided it was going to have 20 hours of witnesses and has done so. The committee wants to move on, and I think it should resolve the issue it is facing.

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

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the excellent job you are doing as the acting Speaker.

I want to ask my colleague the following question. I gather what the Conservatives are trying to say is this: Why speak about what the Conservatives have done at committee to destroy it? Why not have a vote instead? That is kind of a bizarre approach to the debate we should be having.

[The Acting Speaker, Green, Mike Morrice]

The member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes is rising on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite, the deputy government whip, just said that it is not the job of the House to tell committees what to do, so the question is this: Is she withdrawing Motion No. 11?

[The Acting Speaker, Green, Mike Morrice]

That is not a point of order; rather, we are getting into debate.

We will return to questions and comments.

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby was in the middle of a question.

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

Mr. Speaker, that was not even remotely a point of order.

The question I want to ask my hon. colleague is this. We had five weeks of hearings at the heritage committee. The Conservatives blocked any further witnesses. In fact, they blocked many of the witnesses as they were trying to appear. I will address that in my speech in a moment.

All the other parties have already submitted amendments. We tried for a couple of weeks to get the Conservatives to do their work. They refused. Last Friday, all the other parties tabled their amendments. The Conservatives have refused even to have hearings into the serious allegations of sexual assault with respect to Hockey Canada. I moved a motion on—

[The Acting Speaker, Green, Mike Morrice]

The hon. member for Perth—Wellington is rising on another point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, the NDP House leader knows full well that it was the Conservatives who originally moved the motion to hear from Hockey Canada. The record must reflect that.

[The Acting Speaker, Green, Mike Morrice]

We are seeing several points of order that are clearly matters of debate. I would encourage members to reserve points of order for true points of order.

We will return to the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, who can please proceed to his question.

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

Mr. Speaker, I moved that on Monday and Wednesday we would have hearings with Hockey Canada. Conservatives refused to have the vote on that question, which would have allowed for the hearings on Hockey Canada. The facts are very clear.

I wanted to ask my colleague what she thinks about this Conservative behaviour that we have seen over the last few weeks.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the further insight I am getting into what has happened at committee. I know I have heard from some of my colleagues as to the delays that have occurred there, and I agree that the issue of Hockey Canada is important, but there is an order to be maintained in committees as well.

The committee, from what I have been hearing and from what the member has just said, has wanted to look into the Hockey Canada issue, but because there has been consistent filibuster and avoidance not only of getting this bill through committee, but also of getting on to setting meetings and hearing from witnesses on Hockey Canada, that is the issue they have been having at committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will add my voice to those who are commending the admirable job you are doing in the chair. I thank you for what you are doing.

My question is for the hon. deputy whip. We are seeing a lot of delays. I personally think there has been too much political interference in committees. I want to raise a different issue, but it relates to this question of how much committees are really governing their own destinies.

As the member will know, I have objected for years to what has become the common practice of the Prime Minister's Office, dictating to every committee the terms of motions that must be passed at the beginning, after every election, requiring people in my position, as a member of a party that has fewer than 12 MPs, and other members' position, as at some points as many as 12 in the last Parliament were independent members, to provide amendments on legislation in committee that are deemed to have been moved. We are not allowed to vote on them; we are not allowed to participate in debate, yet the fiction on which these motions are justified is that the committee is the master of its own destiny, and it is just a coincidence that every single committee comes up with identically worded motions that are passed at the beginning of every session of Parliament following an election.

I wonder if the member would reflect on whether, if we want to maintain the fiction, it is at all appropriate to have these multiple motions passed at every committee that significantly increase my personal workload, which the hon. member may know is already a fairly significant one.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would definitely agree and recognize that the member's workload is great, and that she probably carries a heavier burden than most members in this House. That is something I have definitely admired since my first day here. How she is able to keep track of what is happening in every committee and of every motion that is moved in the House is remarkable, and I appreciate her hard work.

The motion that has been put forward today by the government is in order to make sure we can hear the amendments the opposition would like to propose when it comes to this piece of legislation. We do not want them not to amend the piece; we want them to be free to bring forth those constructive suggestions.

The motion that has just been moved by the opposition would take the committee on travel and other things, when all along the Conservatives have been denying committees the ability to complete their work. These are committees that chose to do this themselves, not through the House, but through votes within their own committees. They wished to travel to study a certain issue, but the Conservatives have opposed that, so it is beyond me why this motion is being put forth now. All I can say is that I believe it is to delay.