Debates of June 13th, 2022

Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Call in the members.

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

Vote #146

Online Streaming Act

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed from June 10 consideration of the motion.

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

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

Madam Speaker, here we are with a closure motion on a motion to time-allocate this bill. The closure motion on Motion No. 16 is a guillotine motion on a guillotine motion.

We are debating today a motion that would constrain debate at committee stage. It is a motion that would force us through clause-by-clause study and amendments without a word of debate on a bill to amend the Broadcasting Act for the first time in three decades. We are debating a motion that would also limit debate in the House at report stage to a single day and would limit it again at third reading.

All of this is in one single government motion, and just moments ago the government voted for closure. It invoked closure to cut off debate on this motion, to cut off debate on a motion that would limit debate. I could not make this up if I tried, yet this is what the government is doing.

I am sure folks at home are wondering, after reading The Globe and Mail over the weekend, why there is a rush. Why is the government—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I ask members making their way out to please do it quietly and ask members who wish to have conversations to please take them out into the lobby to allow the hon. member to be heard. I would also remind members who want to be the cheering section for the member speaking to please not do that.

The hon. member for Perth—Wellington.

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

Madam Speaker, there is a dull rumble in the room because everyone is so outraged about this motion that they cannot constrain themselves, given the concern they have.

Folks at home might have read the newspaper over the weekend and wondered why there is a rush with this programming motion. The Minister of Canadian Heritage himself said that he was not going to force it through the Senate and that it is not going to become law before the summer, so why the rush to force it through the House? In fact, in The Globe and Mail this week, an article by Bill Curry and Michelle Carbert said this:

The Liberal government says it will not press the Senate to rush the Online Streaming Act into law before the summer recess, even though it moved Friday to shut down debate on the bill in the House of Commons.

In a statement to The Globe and Mail, Canadian Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez said the government does not expect the Senate to rubber stamp the bill after it receives final approval in the Commons.

He does not expect a rubber stamp in the Senate, but here in the elected House of Commons, where each of the 338 of us was elected by 100,000-plus constituents to represent 100,000-plus constituents, we are expected to rubber-stamp this piece of legislation. We are expected to rubber-stamp the largest change to the Broadcasting Act in over three decades.

The government wants to say that the bill has had plenty of debate, that it has had tons of time for debate. Do members know when the bill first came before the heritage committee? The first day of meetings on Bill C-11 at the heritage committee was May 24, less than three weeks ago. We have had less than three weeks to hear from parliamentarians and hear from witnesses across the country.

After that, we were still receiving requests to appear before committee, requests from concerned stakeholders across the country who were not able to testify before the committee. These are Canadians and owners of small businesses who will be personally and directly affected by this piece of legislation, but Parliament and its committee could not hear from them. That is what has brought us to this programming motion to force the bill through the House without meaningful debate.

We as parliamentarians have a duty. We as opposition parliamentarians have an exceptional duty and a role to play. I would like to draw the House's attention to one of the great former leaders of Her Majesty's loyal opposition, the right hon. Bob Stanfield. In a memo to his caucus, he said this: “Not only is it unnecessary for political parties to disagree about everything, but some acceptance of common ground among the major parties is essential to an effective and stable democracy. For example, it is important to stability that all major parties agree on such matters as parliamentary responsible government and major aspects of our Constitution.”

Like the great Bob Stanfield before us, we agree on the importance of parliamentary responsible government, whereby Her Majesty's loyal opposition holds the government to account. When certain parties decide that this is no longer necessary and we are derelict in our duties as opposition parliamentarians, we get a motion like this.

I always like to use a thought exercise. What would members of the House, members of the Liberal government and members of the New Democrats say if Stephen Harper had brought forward a motion as draconian as this one? They would be up in arms. They would be up in question period. They would be up in the House complaining about the draconian measures. However, members of the Liberal government, who for years ridiculed and raised the alarm on closure and time allocation, are the worst perpetrators.

As I mentioned, the bill did not come before the heritage committee until May 24, yet here we are. This is not the first time, either. We will recall that this is the same playbook the Liberals used for Bill C-10, the predecessor to this piece of legislation. They used Motion No. 10 to force Bill C-10 out of committee and into the House.

The government wants to say that we need to get this bill through immediately, but what happened with Bill C-10? The government called a summer election and killed its own legislation. It is awfully rich today to hear the Liberals say that we need to act with great haste to pass this piece of legislation when it is just going to sit in the Senate all summer long.

Many of my colleagues have not yet had a chance to speak to this bill, and will not have a chance to speak to it because of the government using time allocation. This is a piece of legislation that will not only impact the entire broadcasting industry, but also every Canadian who listens to music or watches videos online. This motion is being rushed through to meet an arbitrary deadline.

Last week, on Tuesday, the clerk of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage sent to members 20 different submissions. Among them were submissions from the Broadcasting Accessibility Fund, the Canadian Association of Film Distributors and Exporters, the Canadian Ethnocultural Media Coalition, Blue Ant Media and Spotify, all of which have been denied a chance to appear before the committee by the government. Now, the government House leader has decided they do not deserve an opportunity to speak before the committee.

There are, in fact, many witnesses who have yet to be heard despite the fact that Bill C-11 would have detrimental impacts on their businesses. These include Anthem Sports and Entertainment, the Consumer Technology Association, the Ontario Association of Broadcasters, which represents radio stations, Blue Ant Media, which I mentioned earlier, the Canadian Communication Systems Alliance, the Canadian National Institute for the Blind and Ethnic Channels Group.

The government could have taken a different approach to how to modernize the Broadcasting Act that meets both the needs and technological realities of today, but does so without impacting digital-first creators and new technologies moving forward. Unfortunately, instead of modernization, it is forcing a 30-year-old regulatory system onto Canadians using new technology that old rules are not compatible with. Perhaps most disappointingly, the government ignored those in the digital media sector and went so far as to accuse them of spreading misinformation.

The tactics the Liberal government has used have been an attempt to discredit anyone who has raised legitimate concerns about the implications of this bill. It has been shameful, and it is not up to the standards of decency Canadians expect from their government.

There are obviously several crucial flaws with this bill that need to be fixed. First and foremost is section 4.2. It is a legislative pretzel: an exception to an exception, and a clause in the bill that leaves open to regulation content that indirectly or directly generates revenue. It seems the government does not even understand how the Internet works or how indirectly gaining revenue works.

I draw the House's attention to an expert, Morghan Fortier, who runs the largest YouTube channel in our country and has found great success globally by using new technology. She says the following when referring to the bill:

It's been written by those who don't understand the industry they're attempting to regulate, and because of that, they've made it incredibly broad. It mistakes platforms like YouTube, TikTok and Facebook for broadcasters like the CBC, Netflix and Amazon Prime. It doesn't understand how those platforms operate, and it ignores the fundamental importance of global discoverability. Worst of all, proposed section 4.2 hands sweeping power to the CRTC to regulate...small businesses like mine that are not even associated with broadcasters.

This is from the person who has Canada's most successful YouTube channel. She has found success globally, yet this piece of legislation would constrain and restrain that success globally.

They have said time and again that the CRTC will not regulate user-generated content, but the bill, in black and white, gives it the power. Worse yet, despite repeated requests, the government has refused to release its policy directive to the CRTC that would provide the interpretation of how this bill would be implemented. This “just trust us” approach that the Liberals are following does not inspire confidence.

In fact, just last week, the Minister of Canadian Heritage appeared before committee and told us outright that he would not provide the policy directive until after the bill had received royal assent. After the legislation has been passed, after parliamentarians have passed the legislation, only then will the government tell us how it will be interpreted and how the CRTC will do so.

What is more is that during the minister's appearance at committee, he refused to offer a definition of discoverability. In fact, discoverability is mentioned in the piece of legislation. It is mentioned in Bill C-11, but it is never defined. Until we see the policy directive, we do not know how the CRTC will be directed to implement discoverability.

It comes back to what the Liberals said they would never do. In their 2015 election platform, the Liberals said, “We will also change the rules so that Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries no longer have a vote on committees.” That did not last very long, because now parliamentary secretaries not only sit on committees, but they also have votes and are directing the work of committees.

In fact, last week in the House of Commons, the government House leader said, “let us talk about some of the things we do not do. What we do not do is use parliamentary secretaries in committee to control committees and not allow members to ask questions.”

A little more than one hour after the government House leader said this, it was none other than the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage who, at the beginning of questioning witnesses, filibustered witness testimony to try to move a motion without debate and to move to clause-by-clause. This not only prevented members from questioning witnesses, including the Minister of Canadian Heritage himself, but it also would have had the effect of preventing dozens of other witnesses who wished to testify from testifying.

On Monday and Wednesday of last week, it was again the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage who introduced motions to end study and proceed to clause-by-clause, while dozens of witnesses who wished to appear had been prevented from appearing.

Perhaps what is most concerning is that last week, the Liberal chair of a committee accidentally let it slip that the Liberals had been instructed by their party leadership to have the bill sent back to the House quickly. The member for Vancouver Centre said, “we do not have a lot of time to stretch anything out, because this bill is supposed to be reported back to the House before June 23”. It is supposed to be by who? It is by the Liberals.

The Liberals are directing the chair of a committee to report a bill back. It is shameful. In fact, this closure motion, Motion No. 16, I would dare say is a vote of non-confidence in the Liberal chair of the committee: the member for Vancouver Centre.

I also want to share the words of a digital-first creator, Oorbee Roy, one of the very few digital-first creators who had the opportunity to appear before our committee. She said, “I literally have never gotten a seat at the table—except now, as a digital creator, I'm getting a seat at the table. Representation matters.... Please don't suppress my voice.” Again, that is from Oorbee Roy who found success online as a digital-first creator. As a skateboarding mother, she found success in that market globally. Under this bill, the Liberals are trying to prevent that success.

We in Her Majesty's loyal opposition want to see Canadian creators succeed here in Canada and around the world. We want to see them be able to access and use the tools available to them through the Internet to find that success globally so that Canadian stories, Canadian voices, Canadian music, Canadian television and Canadian film can be enjoyed around the world. Is that not what it is about? It is about sharing the talents of Canadians globally.

I have been very clear that we support making sure that the major streamers, the international foreign streamers, contribute to Canadian productions. We want to see that happen more, and we applaud those companies that are already doing it. We applaud the billions of dollars that Netflix and Disney are investing in Canada and in Canadian-made productions. We want to see more of that. We want to encourage more of that. What we do not want to see happen is Canadian creators being hampered by their ability to export.

We have made some clear commitments about what we want to see changed with Bill C-11. We want to see the removal of section 4.2 to ensure that user-generated content is not subject to CRTC regulation. We want to see a clear definition of discoverability, so we can ensure that one Canadian performer is not lower down to another. We want to see an equality on the Internet to ensure that Canadian arts and Canadian programming are able to excel. We want to see a threshold so that small, independent creators are not captured in a large, cumbersome bureaucratic process.

We want to see updates to the Canadian content definition so that Canadian stories are being told by Canadians. The current definition often sees Canadian stories not being considered Canadian. A perfect example is The Handmaid's Tale. It was written by the great Margaret Atwood and filmed in Ontario, but is not Canadian.

Before we move forward with Bill C-11, we have to get the definition of Canadian content right. Finally, we need to see the policy directive. We need to see the government's instructions to the CRTC of how it will interpret Bill C-11. In the former Bill C-10, the government did that. It released its draft directive before debate in the House of Commons. This time, it refuses to do that.

Bearing in mind these important things and the lack of witnesses we have yet to hear from, I move, second by the hon. member for Chatham-Kent—Leamington:

That the motion be amended:

(a) in paragraph (a),

(i) by substituting subparagraph (i) with the following:

“(i) the committee be instructed to continue hearing from witnesses, including especially Canadian content creators, this month and through the summer adjournment,”,

(ii) by substituting, subparagraph (ii), all the words after the words “11:59 p.m.” with the following: “on Monday, September 19, 2022”,

(iii) by substituting, in subparagraph (iii), all the words after the words “no later than” with the following: “Tuesday, September 27, 2022, provided that the committee has reported back to the House in relation to its order of reference of Thursday, June 2, 2022, in relation to Hockey Canada”,

(iv) by deleting subparagraph (iv) and (v); and

(b) by deleting paragraphs (b) and (c).

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The amendment is in order.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a rare privilege to have the first question off the top to the hon. member for Perth—Wellington.

As he was reflecting on the history, and I have been doing this myself and have not yet had time to dive into Hansard to double-check, he asked members to cast our minds back and ask how this place would react to a motion like this had it been brought forward in the period of time when there was a Harper majority government. I cannot think of a time that a motion this egregious was put forward in that era. I know that when we speak to someone like the hon. member for Perth—Wellington, who got a Ph.D. in the Thursday question, one knows they are going to a source with some knowledge. Could he enlighten me? Did I miss one, or is this in fact the worst we have ever seen?

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

Madam Speaker, in fact I cannot find another example in recent memory when a bill of this magnitude and of such consequence was pushed through at committee stage, through clause-by-clause consideration, through amendments, through report stage and through third reading, all on time allocation at each and every stage.

In fact, I would note that in the motion, any amendments brought by that member or by her colleague from Kitchener Centre would be deemed to have been moved, and the member would not even have an opportunity to appear before committee to present the amendments. This is what we are talking about with a motion such as this, which prevents parliamentarians from doing our job by debating the amendments necessary and forces them through without debate and without the opportunity to have that meaningful dialogue.

I think it is unfortunate. I appreciate the hon. member's question, because this is without precedent in the modern history of this place.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Madam Speaker, I heard the member opposite mention certain shows, like The Handmaid's Tale, but what he did not include in his question and what I would be really curious to hear more about is how many of the people working on that show were Canadian: the actors, directors and the writers for the actual shows.

How much of that intellectual property remains in Canada? How much of that supports our Canadian talent right here in our country? Does he actually believe it is more important to give away the power over the discovery of our shows and to decide that the money goes to web giants that have no connection to our country than it is to see us empower Canadian creators for our productions?

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

Madam Speaker, I encourage the member to join us at the heritage committee so she could hear from different members of the creative industry and from different representatives, such as IATSE, who have strongly talked about changing the rules so that more Canadian production can occur here in canada.

We mentioned The Handmaid's Tale, but let us talk about The Umbrella Academy with the great Colm Feore from Stratford, Ontario, which was filmed in Ontario, but is not considered Canadian content for the purposes of CanCon regulation.

This is the type of thing we need to see changed. We want to see more and more production in Canada. Whether it is in Vancouver or the greater Toronto area, we want to see that talent come here to Canada, using Canadian voices, Canadian actors, Canadian writers, Canadian producers and Canadian media consultants. We want to see that here in Canada, yet the definitions included in the current way of defining Canadian content mean that none of these would be considered Canadian, and that has to change.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I find it so ironic that a bill about communication, about streaming, about communicating with each other is not allowed the proper time for communication in this chamber and at committee.

Why does my colleague suppose that the government would release a policy directive in the previous iteration, Bill C-10 in the previous Parliament, and refuse to do so at this point?

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

Madam Speaker, that is the question: why? Why would the government not just be open and transparent and release the policy directive?

Bill C-11 would provide the CRTC with a significant of regulatory authority, but without the direction from the government, we do not know how the CRTC will interpret that regulatory authority, and we will not know until after we have already been forced to vote on this bill. That is the issue.

If the government wanted to be open and transparent, it would table that document today, as it did with Bill C-10. The question is, what is the government trying to hide?

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

Madam Speaker, I am so tired of hearing the Conservatives spout lies about Canada's arts industry. I cannot take it any more. I have spent so many nights here working on Bill C-11 until midnight and listening to the same speeches about censorship and freedom of expression, speeches about things that have never been proven, that do not exist. The only place those things exist is in the Conservatives' parallel universe.

This nonsense needs to stop. We need to help Canada's arts community. Everyone agrees.

If we accept the Conservatives' premise and do not pass Bill C‑11, what is the Conservatives' solution? What will they do?

We are not saying that it is perfect. However, if we do not go ahead with Bill C‑11, what will the Conservatives do to help our artists in Quebec and Canada?

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

Madam Speaker, let me say what the Conservatives would have done. We would have done what we promised in our election platform. We would have updated the Broadcasting Act, while also respecting digital-first creators and those Canadians who want to excel here at home and around the world. We would have worked with the creative industry, including and especially those who are using new technologies. We would have worked with them to ensure that the major foreign streamers invest in Canada and pay their fair share, but we would have done it in consultation and co-operation with the industry to ensure that users who upload user-generated content are not subject to CRTC rules.

That is what we would have done, and I am proud to say that is what we are fighting for at committee on this bill.

[Kevin Vuong, Independent, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have been hearing from my constituents, who are digital creators. They have been asking me specifically about section 4.2, and I am very curious to hear from my hon. colleague about his views, because my constituents talk about how they are worried that the online content rules would apply to individual users. I would be very curious to hear my hon. colleague's views on that.

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

Madam Speaker, the fact is that section 4.2 is a legislative pretzel. It is an exception to the exception.

What we want to see is a clear prohibition on regulating user-generated content with respect to those digital-first creators who want to exceed and excel. Therefore, when we get to committee—and obviously the government is going to try to force that—we will be looking for clarification and for amendments to ensure that it does not capture the work of digital-first creators, the content that the member's constituents and my constituents are concerned about in Stratford and the surrounding areas, where they are finding success online in the digital world.

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

Madam Speaker, my question for the member is around this issue of whether or not something gets captured by the CRTC.

I understand it states in the bill that anything that generates direct and indirect revenue would now be regulated by the CRTC. Pretty much every piece of content that is put up on the Internet has an advertisement beside it. That advertising generates revenue based on the content. The government claims user-generated content is not included in the regulation, but it is hard to see how it is not when it is generating revenue through advertising. I wonder if the member could comment on that.

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

Madam Speaker, the member for South Shore—St. Margarets is absolutely right. Right there in black and white, it states that direct or indirect revenue could be captured by the CRTC. When we are talking about indirect revenue, it encompasses all of those aspects, whether it is a brand deal with a supplier, direct advertising on the video itself or indirect advertising by the site itself. That has the potential to capture everything. In fact, the chair of the CRTC himself mentioned to the committee that yes, there was a possibility for the government to regulate the content that is uploaded by users. It is clear. It is there in black and white.

We as Conservatives are going to work hard, as we always do, on making sure the amendments are there to protect those creators and those users who want to upload their creative talents onto the different platforms so they can share their talents globally.

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

Madam Speaker, first of all, I am going to share my time with one of my Bloc Québécois colleagues.

It is a pleasure to speak to Government Business No. 16, which is for Bill C‑11. Unfortunately, it is not exactly a great pleasure because it feels like Groundhog Day. We went through essentially the same thing with Bill C‑10, which was introduced in the previous Parliament and was kind of hit or miss as far as the wording went. A lot of work was done. A year on, I feel like we are still bogged down for various reasons that are not necessarily the fault of a single person. All parties contributed to the delays in modernizing the Broadcasting Act. The problem is that, in the meantime, artists and small radio stations and media outlets are suffering and struggling to survive in this high-tech world.

I would like to begin my speech with a look at the current situation. A year has passed and, not surprisingly, the situation is no less urgent. In an article in La Presse just this morning, Alexandre Sirois wrote about the “digital barbarians” that have to be reined in. Here is what he said:

A bill like this to rein in the “digital barbarians” is long overdue. Alain Saulnier uses that colourful expression as the title of a very relevant essay in which he explains the massive devastation caused by companies like Netflix, Amazon, Apple and Google.

The journalist explains that the fate of local culture on the web giants' platforms is quite similar to that of the soft drinks that are relegated to the bottom shelves in grocery stores because the big brands monopolize the best spots.

“That is why access to our content, its discoverability, is the most important issue for the future of all non-U.S. cultures.”

Discoverability is at the heart of this matter. It reminds me of a little anecdote. I was fortunate enough to be part of a delegation abroad recently, along with some of my colleagues from English Canada. Something really struck me. When we were talking about culture and what we watch on TV and listen to on the radio, I noticed that there were almost no common references between Quebec culture and English Canadian culture. Our common references are to American culture. This illustrates how global U.S. culture has become and what a strong impact it has on other cultures, to the detriment of our local culture.

We need to urgently legislate the broadcasting situation because of the repercussions it is having on small players in a context of globalization and the Internet, which is an ever-growing presence in our lives.

Some reports published in 2020, including one by the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, or CAB, projected losses for radio and television broadcasters to the tune of $1.6 billion between 2020 and 2022. That is major. CAB also mentioned that, in the six months following the 2020 report, there could potentially be 50 radio stations at risk of closing and no fewer than 150 more in the next 18 months. That represents a potential loss of 2,000 jobs, or the equivalent of roughly 24% of the jobs that existed in 2019.

Revenues are down across the board. Roughly 40% of private stations have posted a negative net income over the past few years. It is a disaster. This is a huge loss of $336 million between 2010 and 2020 for general television networks. Things are not going very well at all. We also know that this erosion is having an impact on local content in traditional media to the benefit of everything that is on the Internet. Roughly 52% of audiovisual content produced in Canada is not Canadian content. We import a tremendous amount of products because our products are less discoverable.

In this context, production by francophone minority communities is only 4%. Meanwhile, the digital platforms are thriving, but our local content is not on those platforms because of the discoverability issue. Only 2.7% of the 10,000 most popular songs on digital platforms are French songs, so there is also a linguistic aspect that is worrisome here.

I am not saying that Bill C-11 is perfect. Some parts could be improved, or have been improved compared to Bill C-10. One of the issues that the Conservatives were particularly concerned about was algorithms, and that has been addressed. With the first version of Bill C‑10, the CRTC would have been able to intervene and require businesses to change their algorithms to improve discoverability. That was taken out of Bill C‑11. I would say that may be a good thing because, at this time, we may have a tendency of being more preoccupied with the letter of the bill than the spirit. The bill now better reflects the spirit. We want local content to be more discoverable, but we will let the companies determine how to achieve that through advertising, suggestions or other means.

People have mentioned and are still mentioning that there are concerns about the platforms that could be included. The bill does not set out which platforms are included and which are not. Things are being left open so that more platforms could be added in the future. I tend to think that might be a good thing because the bill needs to be adaptable, given how quickly things change in the online realm.

Finally, some definitions may not be clear. The bill is perhaps not perfect, which is why it would be a good idea to give members more time to work on amendments in committee. However, I understand that the Conservatives have been filibustering and putting up roadblocks. I would have liked to talk more about this, but I do not have much time left.

I do want to say, however, that what the Conservatives are unfortunately doing to interfere in this file is a tremendous act of bad faith. The Bloc Québécois recently moved a motion on what happened at Hockey Canada, and the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage must be the one to look into these allegations of assault. The committee members proposed adding hours so that we could deal with both issues at the same time, but the Conservatives refused. This shows that they are more interested in wasting time than anything else.

There was also a motion to allow the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to travel. At the same time, the Conservatives denied approval for the foreign affairs committee to travel, showing once again that this is a tactic to waste the House's time. Conservative members claim that there is not enough time to hear from witnesses, but when asked how many witnesses would be enough, they are unable to provide a number. This, even after the committee already heard from a number of witnesses, including some YouTubers who came to testify in committee not once, but twice.

That said, the Liberals are not beyond reproach either. The time that was allocated to debating Bill C‑11 in committee could have taken place between June 2021 and February 2022. Last June, we knew that we were on the verge of an election, which is why the Bloc Québécois supported a closure motion that was much more restrictive than this one. The super-closure motion we are debating today makes the seven other motions recently voted on in this place look like mere technicalities.

If the House had not shut down for an election, we probably would have been able to get Bill C‑11 through third reading, get it through the Senate and get it passed. All of the time we lost from June to February is much longer than the time that the Conservatives have wasted here in the House.

No one is without blame here. One side is unfortunately systematically obstructing our work. I can understand, to a certain extent, the use of some form of closure on this matter. This is why the Bloc Québécois voted in favour of closure on Bill C‑10 the last time, in a completely different context, because we knew that we were headed into an election.

That does not justify this closure motion, which is much broader and less appropriate given the urgency. In fact, we know that even if we vote in favour of closure now, the bill will not make it through the Senate in time, since there will only be a few days left for the Senate to sit after the motion has been passed in the House, most likely around June 20, 21 or 22, depending on how things are going, and if there is another filibuster.

Unfortunately, no one is without blame here. As I said at the outset, the two main parties in the House keep this going like Groundhog Day. Sadly, the ones who are paying the price are our small traditional media.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member will have five minutes for questions and comments after question period.

Newfoundland Towns' Anniversaries

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate two towns in my riding on upcoming milestone anniversaries. Heart's Delight-Islington is celebrating its 50th anniversary of amalgamation, with celebration events happening between July 29 and August 7. Nearby Heart's Content is celebrating 55 years of incorporation, from August 1 to August 7.

Members can find these two towns on Route 80 on the west coast of the Bay de Verde Peninsula. Both are coastal communities, and while they may be small, both are full of heart, no pun intended. The people are friendly and hard-working. They always welcome visitors with open arms. While visiting, people can see beautiful sunsets and lighthouses and eat fresh seafood any day.

I want to congratulate both towns on their magnificent milestones. I look forward to visiting later this summer.

Youth in Brantford—Brant

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, the youth in Brantford—Brant are keen, motivated and eager to have a say in the future of our country.

Last month, I asked students in my riding to come up with ideas to reduce crime in our community. From increasing community engagement, outreach and resources, to ways to deter incidents of dangerous driving and increasing opportunities for young people, the ideas they came up with were both innovative and creative.

I would like to congratulate Katrina Davis, recipient of the essay contest award, and finalists Tanner Dickie, Giulia Di Lollo and Owen Portelli. These students will be the first members of my youth advisory council, set to begin in the fall, when I begin to look forward to getting their non-partisan advice on a variety of pressing issues.

Our young people are our future, and I can confidently say that our future is bright. They provide invaluable knowledge, and I am excited to continue to engage and hear their opinions and perspective.

Humber River Hospital

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, the past two years have been difficult, fighting the COVID-19 pandemic, but none more so than for our health care professionals, who have been challenged both personally and professionally.

Situated in the traditional lands of the Anishinabe, Humber River Hospital has cared for more COVID patients than many other hospitals in Toronto. It played a key role in keeping the northwest community safe and healthy, delivering close to 400,000 vaccines at the clinic and raising over $2 million for local COVID response. With a greater mission in mind, Humber River Hospital continued to save lives, improve patients' journeys and foster innovations, while nurturing the culture of philanthropy and playing an important role in bettering the community.

The pandemic has been tough, but Humber River Hospital employees were up to the fight to protect residents of Humber River—Black Creek, showing further leadership on how to foster a positive work environment, something that was vital for our health care professionals.

To the CEO and president, as well as every employee and volunteer at Humber River Hospital, our community thanks them. We are forever grateful.