Debates of March 30th, 2023

Questions on the Order Paper

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Private Members' Business

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The Chair would like to make a statement concerning the management of Private Members' Business. As members know, certain constitutional procedural realities constrain the Speaker and members insofar as legislation is concerned.

Following each replenishment of the order of precedence, the Chair reviews items so that the House can be alerted to bills that, at first glance, appear to infringe on the financial prerogative of the Crown. This allows members to intervene in a timely fashion to present their views on the need for those bills to be accompanied by a royal recommendation.

Following replenishment of the order of precedence with 15 new items on Thursday, March 16, two bills concern the Chair. One is Bill C-318, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code (adoptive and intended parents) standing in the name of the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster.

The other is Bill C‑319, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act (amount of full pension), standing in the name of the member for Shefford. The Chair is of the view that these bills may need a royal recommendation.

Members are therefore invited to make arguments regarding the requirement of a royal recommendation for Bills C-318 and C-319 at the earliest opportunity.

I thank the members for their attention.

Motion that debate be not further adjourned

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, in relation to consideration of Motion No. 2 respecting Senate amendments to Bill C-11, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts, I move:

That debate be not further adjourned.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Pursuant to Standing Order 67(1), there will now be a 30-minute question period.

I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places or use the “raise hand” function so the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in the question period.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Lethbridge.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what we just heard from the government is that it has moved closure on Bill C-11 and our discussion with regard to the amendments that came back from the Senate.

Closure means that the government is shutting down debate. I find this rather interesting because, really, Bill C-11 is a censorship bill, so we have a government that has moved a censorship bill and now is moving censorship on that censorship bill. Let us talk about a government very committed to censorship; it not only wants to censor what Canadians can see, hear and post online through Bill C-11, but the government also wants to censor us as opposition members in our ability to speak to the bill.

It should be further noted that the Quebec government, under Premier Legault, issued an open letter asking to be heard with regard to this legislation, because it has significant concerns. It asked that the bill be referred to committee, but it was not.

Therefore, not only was referral to committee not permitted, but now thorough debate is not permitted. Let us talk about a government committed to shutting down voices, not only the voices of the individuals in the House but also the individuals online who have something to say within that space. Why is this government so hell-bent on shutting down freedom?

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, let me start by thanking all members in the House, as well as members of the other chamber, for having spoken so long and so well on the matter of this bill. I have information that, in the House, we spent 34 hours debating the bill, plus an additional 22 hours at committee. In the Senate, they spent 18 hours debating the bill in the chamber, plus an additional 65 hours in clause-by-clause debate.

That is historic, because it is the longest time ever that the Senate has taken to look at a bill clause by clause. It is historic in the amount of time and effort that members of Parliament spent on the bill. This indeed is very important, because it is an important bill.

We look forward to bringing it forward to Canadians.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is too bad that we are facing yet another closure motion on such an important bill. It is true that hours and hours have been devoted to studying this bill in committee. Those hours were often monopolized by the Conservatives, who did not want to allow the work to advance because they were sticking to their position and were inflexible. A little more flexibility could have led to a compromise, but that did not happen.

My colleague from Lethbridge talked about the Quebec government's requests. I think it is very interesting to hear the Conservatives suddenly take an interest in Quebec culture. Quebec's requests were made to the government and not necessarily to the entire committee.

Was it not the government's responsibility to take that into account when the time came to do so and at least share the the Quebec government's requests with all the members of the committee?

The Conservatives might not have been here today making this argument, and we might have been wrapping up the work on this very important bill that our culture and broadcasting system have been so eagerly awaiting.

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank our colleague from Drummond and his Bloc Québécois colleagues for all the work they have done in recent months to restore some reason and reduce the confusion surrounding this important bill. Unfortunately, there are many conspiracy theories and misunderstandings. Fortunately, they are rarely the product of bad faith.

It is 2023. The ways content is broadcast have changed dramatically. Creators, musicians, artists, technicians, screenwriters across Canada, including Quebec, need the Canadian government to do its job and ensure that web giants support Canadian culture and artists. I am very happy and very grateful for the Bloc's work and support in this regard.

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

Madam Speaker, there is no doubt that Bill C-11 is needed. We have seen a hemorrhaging of our artistic and cultural sectors. We have seen the loss of thousands of jobs. What Bill C-11 would do, in effect, is allow for more support for our cultural sector and more ability for Canadians to find Canadian content, to actually see Canadian artists and hear messages from other parts of Canada. This is absolutely essential.

That being said, two parties have approached this differently. The NDP approach Bill C-11 with the idea of improving the bill. We brought in important amendments to uphold the freedom of speech, to ensure indigenous peoples and racialized Canadians would be a bigger part of broadcasting and their content would be more available online.

Conservatives have been throwing wacky conspiracy theories onto the floor of the House of Commons, hour after hour, comparing Bill C-11 to what goes on in North Korea. There is nothing about mass starvation, prison camps or systemic torture in Bill C-11.

I want to ask my colleague across the way this question: Is the fact that the Conservatives wasted all of this debating time by throwing in wacky conspiracy theories part of the importance of actually getting this bill through to help Canadian artists in the cultural sector?

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec, QC]

Madam Speaker, let me also express my words of thanks on behalf of the minister and the government, and on behalf of all artists and members of the cultural communities across Canada. My congratulations and my thanks go to the member opposite and his party for pointing out the importance of modernizing and making more equitable the Broadcasting Act. Again, we are in the 21st century. We are not back in the 19th century, when we used other means of communication and technology.

It is very important that we can depend on everyone's input to be reasonable, focus on facts and avoid conspiracy theories. There is nothing in this bill that goes against freedom of speech. In fact, it would support the freedom of expression of our artists in Canada, who depend so much on our support and do not get the support they need from web giants these days.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, could the minister expand on just how this legislation is meant to modernize the Broadcasting Act? We would have to go back to the early 1990s to look at the last time there were any significant changes. At that time, things like Netflix and Crave did not exist, let alone the technological advancement of the Internet over the last 30 years.

Could the minister provide his thoughts on just trying to keep up with the times?

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is exactly that, keeping up with the times and looking forward to an ever-stronger and prouder community of artists, musicians and creators in our field in Canada.

We are so proud of Canadian culture. We know, however, that web giants are making enormous amounts of money on the backs of Canadian artists. On this side of the House, we are certainly not preoccupied with their bottom line or how much profit they make. We are more focused on how much support they can provide to our artists and communities in Canada, and that is what we are going to continue working on.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, in spite of the minister's assertions, this bill would not in any way help Canadian voices. What it would do is prop up a failing business model of other types of legacy content producers.

There is one line in a review of the bill that says, “C-11 will take money away from young entrepreneurs, funnel it back to traditional media and fund content from the established and well-connected culturati.” I believe that this is an accurate assessment of the bill. I do not believe that the government has addressed concerns that have been raised by thousands of Canadians, which is why we need more debate. We need more debate on this bill because it would impact so many Canadians in a negative way.

Given all these facts, why is the government curtailing debate on its censorship bill?

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec, QC]

Madam Speaker, there is indeed an impact on people here, and the impact is on the CEOs of web giants. There are very few of them in my riding. I live in a riding where there are lots of artists, where people come from outside of my region of Quebec City to visit festivals and support culture in my community. That is where people want to work and live.

I am not particularly concerned about Netflix and big giants in my riding. They obviously do their job and make profits. What I am more interested in is providing the support the communities and artists need in my riding.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, one of my concerns about this piece of legislation is the Conservatives wanting to delay closure on it and the passage of it, even though it has gone through quite a lot of debate in this place and the other place. I am concerned about their desire to fundraise off of it by continually bringing forward misinformation around the bill. Furthermore, I am concerned about their use of the bill as a political tool, as opposed to debating its actual substance.

Could the minister comment on their desire to fundraise off of it as their core desire?

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Senate spent 83 hours of its time looking at the bill, and House of Commons committees spent 56 hours on it. As we mentioned earlier, this is the longest-ever amount of time the Senate has spent on the study of a particular bill. That is why we are so proud and so pleased about the enormous amount of work that people in the House and the other chamber did over the last months and years. It is why we look forward to moving on with the bill.

Artists, musicians and cultural communities in Canada need our support, and that is why we are so proud to be able to provide it to them.

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

Madam Speaker, I cannot tell the hon. minister how distressed I am to see the hon. Minister of Health defending closure on debate on a bill that has nothing to do with his portfolio. Everything about closure offends basic democracy within Parliament.

I have said this before, and I will say it again. When I was first elected in 2011, I watched the then Conservative majority start the process of using closure on almost every bill. Sitting over there, my colleagues in the Liberal Party and I bemoaned and railed against this horrible abuse of our democratic process in Parliament. They did so only to turn around and use closure as often and then more often than the previous government did.

I do not particularly enjoy the debate on Bill C-11. It is not a battle of wits but a disinformation campaign versus facts. However, the reality is that every MP in this place has a right to debate, and closure is wrong.

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think we all regret that too. We would prefer to be able to move on a different path with the Conservative opposition, as has been mentioned by the Bloc and the NDP, and as the leader of the Green Party just reminded us. This is unfortunate, but that is the only path to helping Canadians and artists in our communities go forward in a challenging world. Social media, modern technology and all that can support cultural development in Canada, but it needs to be done in a manner that is adapted to the reality of the 21st century.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, there is no doubt that the bill is a disaster. Liberals have been flailing away with it for months. They tried it in the last Parliament. They steadfastly refuse to exempt user-uploaded content. It has been to the Senate; indeed, as the minister said in his remarks, the Senate spent a record amount of time debating this bill because it is a disaster. The bill needed the 20-odd amendments that were sent back, which still do not even fix it, and the government is ramming it back and just accepting a few of the amendments.

Can the member not grasp, or does he not agree, that a bill that required this much extra work to fix it within the Senate should at least, at a minimum, continue to be debated here and referred to a committee in the House of Commons? Then we could maybe have a chance to cobble this together into something that is not the disaster it is.

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member is right in pointing to the important work the Senate did. It is why a very large number of the amendments the Senate is proposing are being approved and accepted by the government. We look forward to moving forward with them. That is why, as has also been said, we are grateful for its work and the 83 hours of time it spent on the bill. It is a very important bill; the member is correct. It had to have specific efforts and time to—

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

You still reject those amendments.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I just want to remind the hon. member that while someone has the floor, it is not proper to interrupt. I also indicated this a while ago. If the hon. member has questions and comments, she should wait until it is time for questions and comments and attempt to be recognized.

The hon. minister can continue.

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member who was speaking is totally right to be able to focus her attention on that.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you. Thank you.