House of Commons Hansard #153 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was culture.
This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Alleged Premature Disclosure of Information Concerning Bill C-39—Speaker's Ruling Members hear the Speaker rule that a media-only briefing on the Pacific Link pipeline policy does not constitute a prima facie breach of privilege, though members should receive timely information. 600 words.
Opposition Motion—Funding of the Cultural Sector Members debate the Bloc Québécois motion urging the government to uphold CRTC levies on streaming services and deliver a promised $600 million to the cultural sector. Bloc and NDP MPs argue the levies would make digital platforms contribute to supporting Quebec and Canadian culture, while Liberals say court challenges blocked payments and defend direct funding and a new policy approach. Conservatives question the cost and the government’s record of delivering its commitments. 43900 words, 5 hours in 2 segments: 1 2.
Alleged Mis-characterization of Members' Remarks Members debate a privilege complaint over remarks describing opposition to Bill C-39 as a “wild disinformation campaign,” with the NDP arguing the comments impugn MPs’ integrity and the Liberals saying the complaint is untimely and based on conjecture. 900 words, 10 minutes in 2 segments: 1 2.
Canada Labour Code Second reading of Bill C-247. The bill would repeal section 107 of the Canada Labour Code, which allows the federal government to intervene in labour disputes and limit strikes. Supporters say this protects workers’ charter rights and bargaining power; the Liberal speaker argues that safeguards and mediation reforms are preferable to repealing the provision. 5200 words, 35 minutes.
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Mr. Speaker, during oral questions, the Minister of Jobs referenced a desire to see the correspondence I was referring to about food affordability.
I seek unanimous consent to table the letter—
Irene MathyssenOral Questions
Kelly DeRidder Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions amongst all parties, and I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion.
I move:
That Bill C-240 be transferred from the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security pursuant to Standing Order 73(3).
Committees of the HouseOral Questions
The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia
All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay.
There being no dissenting voice, it is agreed.
The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.
(Motion agreed to)
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As I know you are aware, my tolerance for heckling is very high.
During question period, we had the Minister of Jobs and Families providing an answer to a question that was put across the way. It was very disturbing when the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek yelled from the top of his lungs, on more than one occasion, “Sit down.”
We all take the responsibility to stand up, representing our constituents or the government or opposition. The only one who should be asking us to sit down is the person sitting in the Speaker's chair. We are asking that the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek apologize for screaming in the House and trying to intimidate another member to sit down.
Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderOral Questions
The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia
There was clearly a great deal of noise. At a certain point, debates get quite heated. One can understand that, but that certainly is not appropriate language. We should not be telling any member to sit down while they are speaking, while they rightly have the floor.
Andrew Scheer Conservative Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK
Mr. Speaker, if you go back and review the audio from basically every single question period, you will hear that exact phrase, “sit down”, coming from the government benches almost every time members of the opposition ask questions.
If the parliamentary secretary wants to teach lessons, he should maybe take a lesson on decorum as well.
Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderOral Questions
The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia
It is clearly inappropriate, whichever side it comes from. I would just hope that members could do better in future.
It is time now for the hon. opposition House leader to stand up because he has a question.
Andrew Scheer Conservative Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK
Mr. Speaker, it is time for everyone's favourite moment of the week in the House of Commons, the Thursday question.
I would like to ask the government if it could update the House as to the business for the rest of this week and for the week following. Perhaps the government could tell us why it has chosen to table a budget on a Thursday afternoon right before a break week. Is it because the Liberals are afraid of getting questions on the budget, especially after the Parliamentary Budget Officer's update, which paints such a bleak picture of the Liberal government's fiscal and economic management?
Will the government be bringing in any legislation to provide relief at the grocery store? It tried the exact same tactic that the Trudeau government tried of giving out rebates, and food inflation continues to rise, wiping out any benefit that Canadians might have received from that. Will it bring in any legislation that will actually deal with the root cause of inflation, which we know, of course, is massive amounts of borrowing, pushing up the cost of debt as well?
Will it bring in any legislation to unblock our resources, for example, potentially repealing the shipping ban on Canadian energy off Canada's west coast? That would open up Asian markets and would improve the economic performance of the country.
Will the government be taking any of the measures to undo the terrible policies that it has inflicted on this country for the past 11 years?
Arielle Kayabaga Liberal London West, ON
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to offer my condolences to the Canadian Armed Forces members in Wainwright who are dealing with loss, Canadian military families across Canada and the families of the injured who are still dealing with the aftermath of the fire. My prayers and thoughts are with them, and I know the people of London West are also thinking about the people in Alberta.
I also want to recognize that on Monday, Albertans voted to stay in Canada. They voted to believe in building a strong country. They voted for building our nation together with Canadian workers, with Canadian material, and that together we will continue to build a strong country. I want to recognize that.
The member opposite mentioned our budget that is going to be tabled on November 5, which is a Thursday. I would like to remind the member that after the many years he has sat here, he is well aware that we also sit on Friday. I welcome him coming in on Friday, November 6, to ask a lot of questions. Many members will be in the House to answer those questions.
Tomorrow, we will begin to study two bills. In the morning, we will study Bill C-28, the Canadian space launch act. In the afternoon, we will study Bill S-3, on weights and measures.
On Monday, we will resume consideration at second reading of Bill C-40, strengthening Canada's defence sector act.
Tuesday, October 27, shall be an allotted day.
On Wednesday and Thursday of next week, we will call Bill C-34, the digital safety act, at second reading.
Finally, I would like to inform the House that, pursuant to Standing Order 66(2), we will resume debate on Motion No. 10 to concur in the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, on Tuesday, October 27.
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Mr. Speaker, I would very briefly like to respond to the question of privilege that was raised by the member for Edmonton Strathcona prior to question period, in which she said, “The member for Halifax attacked my integrity when she characterized my opposition to Bill C-39 as a ‘wild disinformation campaign’”.
I would submit that the term “disinformation” has been used extremely loosely in the chamber. Many members use it, and it certainly is not something new. In fact, on June 14, 2021, perhaps ironically or coincidentally, in a response to a question I raised, the member for Edmonton Strathcona said, “legislation that was so flawed and needed so much work that it opened the door for the Conservative Party to sow disinformation”. In fact, I would draw the Speaker's attention to the fact that the member actually used that term in that characterization on a number of occasions on that day.
My point is only to demonstrate that “disinformation” is a widely used term in the House, and unless PROC, another body or the House is going to decide that the term is no longer allowed to be used, it is a term that we are continuing to use. The member used it in the one example I just provided.
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Alexis Deschênes Bloc Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC
Mr. Speaker, let us talk a little bit about the importance of what we are proposing today, the purpose of our motion.
In the Gaspé, we are lucky to have quite a few local media outlets. What do those people do? They connect members of the community. What I mean by that is that they create a space for dialogue where people can have democratic discussions. They give a voice to the voiceless. They let marginalized people, members of civil society and elected officials express themselves. They help foster a collective dialogue. I believe in that. Freedom of expression and dialogue ensure that, in society, discussion leads to identifying promising solutions.
This is a traditional media model that we need to support during this revenue crisis. Social media and major platforms are eating into these outlets' revenue streams because there are too many advertisers paying to advertise on social media.
We all use social media, but let us think about how it works. The idea behind social media is to create echo chambers, to make society as individualistic as possible so that those who think alike all end up together in their own little corner. We need to support our local media to counterbalance what social media is doing by making society individualistic. That is why members should support our motion.
Opposition Motion—Funding of the Cultural SectorBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Winnipeg North Manitoba
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I think it is really important for us to recognize that this is an interim measure of $600 million that was put into place. There is no doubt, when we think of online streaming and the benefits, that it has to be able to contribute in one form or another.
The Prime Minister and the government are committed to coming up with a system that is going to work in the long term by working with international partners, and in the interim, providing funding so we can provide the support that is necessary for our cultural communities.
Does the member not think that is a responsible thing to do?
Alexis Deschênes Bloc Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC
Mr. Speaker, we want the $600 million to be paid out as quickly as possible. However, we find it shocking that all taxpayers in Canada and Quebec, who do pay their taxes, will be subsidizing our industry, which needs support. Rather, it should be the tech giants' job, given that they are raking in billions of dollars and paying nothing. That is shocking and makes no sense at all.
Opposition Motion—Funding of the Cultural SectorBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Conservative
Burton Bailey Conservative Red Deer, AB
Mr. Speaker, it was the Conservative government, under then prime minister Harper, that recognized Quebec as a nation. Culture, language and shared ancestry all played a part in determining what a nation is. With this in mind, the province of Quebec demands a level of autonomy that other provinces do not benefit from in Canada.
Would my colleague agree that the other provinces in Canada, such as Alberta, deserve more autonomy, away from the heavy hand of the federal government, in determining what is the best direction for their province, as with immigration, for example?
Alexis Deschênes Bloc Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC
Mr. Speaker, under the Meech Lake accord, Quebec was presented with a number of proposals, and what we learned from that was that it was not possible to get the support of the other provinces.
I wish the very best for people in the other provinces. As far as we in Quebec are concerned, we drew our own conclusions. We are fighting to expand our freedom. What we want is a country, and I wish the same for my colleague from another province.
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity, following my colleague's very apt remarks, to acknowledge the appointment of my predecessor and, in many respects, my mentor, Alain Therrien, the king himself. Mr. Therrien left an indelible mark on the Bloc Québécois, and I am sure he will do an outstanding job in Quebec City as treasury board president.
I would also like to congratulate my friend Simon‑Pierre Savard‑Tremblay, who served alongside us until this past spring and who will now serve as the minister responsible for relations with the first nations and the Inuit.
Finally, I congratulate the entire Parti Québécois caucus and all the newly appointed members of cabinet. We are really looking forward to working with them.
Alexis Deschênes Bloc Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC
Mr. Speaker, I have a connection I could mention, because Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj is a huge riding that is home to four members of the National Assembly, and yesterday, three of those four members were appointed to cabinet. I believe that this is the strongest representation that Gaspé and the Magdalen Islands have ever had around the cabinet table. My colleague rightly acknowledged our former Bloc Québécois colleagues.
I would also like to extend my congratulations to Pascal Bérubé, who will be able to join our fight to ensure that the U.S. web giants pay their fair share. I am confident that we will be able to count on Mr. Bérubé as minister of culture to join forces with us to finally deliver some tax fairness and ensure that the U.S. web giants contribute to our cherished Quebec culture.
Opposition Motion—Funding of the Cultural SectorBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed in how the Conservatives have tried to frame this as if they were really concerned about culture and heritage, when they want to defund CBC and —
Opposition Motion—Funding of the Cultural SectorBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
An hon. member
Oh, oh!
Opposition Motion—Funding of the Cultural SectorBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
No, that is true.
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' behaviour is questionable in regard to CBC Radio.
I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts on the importance of funding those two institutions.
Alexis Deschênes Bloc Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC
Mr. Speaker, I did not understand what the member was asking, but if the question was whether the government should quickly release the $600 million that the Liberals promised, then the answer is yes, they should do it soon.
Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Mr. Speaker, I begin my speech in good spirits, thanks to the wonderfully quick wit of the member who spoke before me.
I am also going to follow in my colleagues' footsteps, because I too have prepared some brief remarks about our representatives in Quebec City that I want to give before starting my speech. We found out who will be in cabinet yesterday. The riding of Berthier—Maskinongé is a little smaller than my colleague's riding in the Gaspé; we did not get four ministers, but we did get three, which is not bad at all. I am very proud that Elsie Lefebvre was elected in Berthier. She is my own MNA, because that is where I live. Maxime Laporte is the MNA for L'Assomption, and Isabelle Blais is the MNA for Maskinongé. I would like to welcome them. We are going to have a great working relationship over the next few years. I would also like to take this opportunity to acknowledge Élodie Murphy‑Gauthier and Jean Pellerin, who were elected in the Mauricie region. I endorsed several candidates in the Mauricie region. I want to send a shout-out to René Branchaud. We came very close. I would like to tell my friend that we will meet again next time. I am certain that he will be there and that it will work out. I would be remiss if I did not mention my former colleagues as well. Simon‑Pierre Savard‑Tremblay was my comrade-in-arms for several years on our supply management bill. I really enjoyed working with him. I have no doubt that he will do an excellent job as a minister in Quebec City. Of course, I must mention our former House leader, Alain Therrien, who is an inspiration to all of us. If there is one person who really helped me manage the unmanageable and deal with the frustrations and the lack of control over our environment that we sometimes feel as new members, it is him, so I tip my hat to him. We are very proud of him, and we are sure that he will do a bang-up job.
I will now address the crux of today's issue. It is simply outrageous. The government really needs to stop pretending.
I have not been in such a good mood lately. I will tell the House what happens when I am not in a good mood. This is a very personal part of my life that I did not expect to talk about in the House, but I cannot pretend. That is not in my nature. When something is bothering me, the people around me immediately ask what is wrong. They ask me what is going on. In life, I do not pretend. I simply cannot do that. I think it stinks when people pretend. That is polite enough language for me to say in the House. It really grinds my gears. I am tired of watching the Liberal government pretend that it thinks culture is important.
Amid artful gestures and eloquent speeches, they will roll out a dreamy outdoor backdrop complete with just enough breeze to tousle the hair, and they will announce how generous they are for giving $600 million to the desperately needy cultural sector. Meanwhile, just a day earlier, they will have robbed that same sector of more than $2 billion because they lacked courage, bowed down and surrendered. That expression of the Prime Minister's, “elbows up”, also applies to someone lying prostrate on the ground with only their elbows sticking up. That will not stop the United States from using us as a doormat.
I have quoted Pierre Falardeau several times in the House, but I really like this quote. Falardeau used to say that someone who stands up will be hated but respected, while someone who prostrates themselves on the ground will just be used as a doormat. That is not the exact wording, but my colleagues get the idea.
I would rather stand up and have people hate me but call me “sir”. I think that Quebeckers prefer that, as Canadians do. Maybe we should stop taking everything lying down. This is what we have been seeing from the very beginning. What is more, the Liberals have the nerve to stand up and ask what the Bloc Québécois is complaining about. They did it earlier during oral question period. They say they have made a major $600-million announcement. The whole bunch of them are patting themselves on the back and looking all proud.
This will seem like a sound bite, but it is important to know the backstory. Where will that $600 million come from? It will come out of our pockets.
The levy stemmed from a decision made by the CRTC. By the way, people may not know this, but the CRTC is supposed to be independent. It can receive general guidelines coming from the political sphere, but then its members, who are all thoughtful individuals, sit down and analyze the situation.
The CRTC came to a conclusion. It saw that the media landscape was changing. A lot has changed in the last 10 or 15 years. We know that. Very few people now subscribe to traditional television. Traditional media outlets are forced to contribute to the system. Online media outlets contribute nothing but get most of the advertising revenue. That is the situation.
I do not always applaud the CRTC's decisions, but that one made a lot of sense. It said that they had to pay a minimum percentage. It was increased from 5% to 15%, but that was not enough. Web giants would have to invest in the creation of French-language content to the tune of 30%. We certainly applauded that.
How did the Prime Minister respond? He said that it had to be scrapped or else Donald Trump would get angry and not give us anything.
I challenge the parliamentary secretary, who is listening to me, to rise later and tell me what they got from the United States in return.
Since the 2025 election, when our saviour, Mr. Canada, the man who was supposed to get us out of this mess, was elected, we have not gotten anything.
I have no objection to grand speeches being given on the international stage. The case for the role of middle powers can be a compelling one, particularly when it comes to bilateral and especially multilateral relations in international forums. That is why we look forward to the day when Quebec can take its place among them and bring its own voice, political clout and vision to the world.
Some ideas make sense, such as strengthening ties with Europe. We have been advocating that for a long time. It would be particularly worthwhile when it comes to environmental and trade standards, as the proposals that we put forward in committee are often blocked by members from the other Canadian provinces.
I served for many years on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, and I believe that we could learn a great deal from European policies. That would be quite interesting. Ultimately, however, what matters is action. Governments are not judged by what they say. They are judged by what they do and by what they have done.
The government announced $600 million in funding taken from taxpayers' pockets. I want to point out what happened just before that. By overturning the CRTC's policy, it deprived the media sector of more than $2 billion.
Let us dig just a little deeper. I know that may be difficult for some members here, but let us try. Let us go back to the day before yesterday. The Liberals scrapped the digital services tax to please the orange man. We got nothing in return. This time, it was worth more than $7 billion over five years.
Now they have the nerve to stand up, look at us and smugly say that they are being generous to the cultural sector. That is rich.
This week, I took part in a press conference with the House of Commons interpreters, translators and terminologists. They are in contract talks. The same government that says culture, the French language and official bilingualism are important wants to cut 25% of the Translation Bureau's resources over the next five years. The thing is, the Translation Bureau's budget is a tiny fraction of the total federal budget. It is $160 million. This is a joke.
Francophone elected officials like us know that working in the Parliament of Canada is a huge daily challenge, because 90% of everything that happens here is done in English. That is fine; it is their language and their right. We have a right to work in our language, too. We have a right to quality interpretation. These are qualified professionals who are currently being treated with disdain. They are being told that artificial intelligence will replace them.
I hope everyone saw this morning's article about how AI translated TB, the abbreviation for the Translation Bureau, as “tuberculosis” in French. That is the big joke of the day. The worst part is that the English terms “should” and “must” both get translated into French by the same word: “doit ”. Imagine what the courts would do with those two words in a piece of legislation.
I hope that the judge would not say what I have heard before from a clerk at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, namely that the English version takes precedence. I hope that does not happen, because that is not supposed to be true. The two official languages are supposed to be equal, truly equal. The government needs to stop messing around when it comes to culture. Everyone needs to stop messing around. Let us find a way, stand up to the United States and accept the fact that we need these giants that make profits here to pay their fair share.