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.
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, entitled “Use of Underused and Surplus Federal Lands and Buildings for Services for Veterans”.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.
Dan Mazier Conservative Riding Mountain, MB
Mr. Speaker, I rise to present the official opposition's dissenting opinion on the study “Use of Underused and Surplus Federal Lands and Buildings for Services for Veterans”.
Conservatives believe that the Liberal MP for Cumberland—Colchester introduced this study to distract from her government's closure of the Amherst Armoury in her riding. If she wanted real results, she should have demanded action from Liberal ministers instead of asking Parliament to study what her government already has the power to do.
While the government tried to congratulate itself on military investment, the committee learned that the Liberals are counting unarmed research ships, used to count fish, towards their NATO defence target. We also learned that the Liberals pulled $3 million out of the veteran homelessness program, claiming they could not find eligible veterans, while thousands of veterans remain homeless. Representatives of organizations that serve homeless veterans testified that they were disgusted by this decision.
The Liberals were just as dismissive of female veterans who had come forward through the women veterans council. Six of the council's 12 members resigned, including retired Sergeant Jessica Miller, who testified at the study. She told the committee that emails from female veterans were never forwarded to the council, and she was told that the Minister of Veterans Affairs was taking a top-down approach. Unfortunately, the Liberal MP who sponsored the study did not show up to that meeting.
After more than 10 years in power, the Liberal government is still proposing studies and frameworks for problems it has promised to solve and that it has the tools to fix. Conservatives refuse to let another committee study cover up for Liberal inaction.
Kelly DeRidder Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, today I am presenting a petition on behalf of Kitchener Centre residents concerned about the Rogers radio closures and their impact on our community.
During the Shaw acquisition campaign, assurances were made that local radio would not be impacted. Petitioners want to know what the response is to these closures, and whether Rogers will be held accountable for breaking those assurances. These closures threaten local jobs, access to local news and voices of our community.
Kitchener residents deserve answers, and this petition is an important step towards holding Rogers accountable.
Karina Gould Liberal Burlington, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions.
The first is from a group in Prince Edward Island that is working on the basic income pilot.
In November 2020, the final report of the Special Committee on Poverty in PEI recommended that the Government of Prince Edward Island begin immediate negotiations with the Government of Canada to develop and implement a basic income guarantee demonstration program for Prince Edward Island.
The petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to begin immediate negotiations with the Government of Prince Edward Island to develop and implement a basic income guarantee demonstration program in the province of P.E.I. that will be implemented, monitored and evaluated for five to seven years.
Karina Gould Liberal Burlington, ON
Mr. Speaker, the second petition I am presenting comes from a group of citizens in my riding of Burlington who are in favour of the Canada-wide early learning and child care initiative.
The petitioners are calling on the government to continue investment in this program to ensure that every child across this country has access to high-quality, inclusive child care. They are looking to ensure that there is more infrastructure and that the dollars are tied to inflation.
Eric St-Pierre Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition brought forth by Aaron Hagey-Mackey and signed by 765 Canadians. The petitioners ask our government to establish an open, transparent and legally binding public naming process for major infrastructure projects. The petitioners seek a process that would allow citizens and residents of Canada to submit name proposals for projects. They seek a voting mechanism that would allow publicly approved names to then be adopted as the official project name, subject of course to reasonable standards of decency.
The petitioners seek to embrace democratic principles of citizen engagement by allowing public naming of public projects.
Sukhman Gill Conservative Abbotsford—South Langley, BC
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions on behalf of the people of Abbotsford—South Langley.
The first petition calls for long-term investment in resilient infrastructure across British Columbia's west coast corridor.
Every British Columbian remembers the 2021 floods that devastated our communities and exposed serious vulnerabilities in our critical infrastructure. Therefore, the petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to recognize the West Coast Corridor Resiliency Partnership as a strategic partnership and to provide predictable long-term investment in flood protection, transportation infrastructure and disaster preparedness.
Sukhman Gill Conservative Abbotsford—South Langley, BC
Mr. Speaker, the second petition calls for immediate relief for the rising diesel costs and stronger Canadian energy security.
Diesel is essential to all Canadian farmers, truckers, businesses and workers. When diesel prices rise, the cost of producing food, transporting goods and operating businesses rises with them, and that puts pressure on all Canadians.
Therefore, the petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to provide immediate relief from federal taxes on diesel until Canada Day, support new refinery and fuel transportation infrastructure, and take steps to strengthen Canada's domestic fuel supply so Canadians have a less vulnerable system and fewer shortages in supply and distribution.
Terry Dowdall Conservative Simcoe—Grey, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise for the great people in Simcoe—Grey.
I am presenting a petition on behalf of a local constituent, a young gentleman who has been quite dismayed with the current state of democracy in our Canada. His petition states that “Under the ‘rights of information act’ (1985)”, every person who is a Canadian citizen, or a permanent resident, “‘has a right to and shall, on request, be given access to any record under the control of a government institution.’” The petition also says, “Canadian democracy relies on government clarity.”
The petition goes on to say that on April 29 during a health committee meeting, the new government majority voted to shut off public recordings of the meeting, going in camera and restricting public access to speeches, interviews and comments from MPs. It says that the Prime Minister has “openly attempted and successfully poached opposition MPs against the wishes of their constituents”, that the current Prime Minister is the first Canadian prime minister to gain a majority government through backdoor deals rather than through votes, and that one of the Prime Minister's first acts with his “manufactured majority” was to “stack” parliamentary committees in order to gain control.
Corey Tochor Conservative Saskatoon—University, SK
Mr. Speaker, I stand in my place to bring awareness of a petition that is circulating in Saskatoon. Petitioners are extremely concerned with the rate of violent crime in our city. Since 2015, it has skyrocketed, and the government has poured gas on that fire with the epidemic of mental health and the addiction crisis from coast to coast.
The people of Saskatoon who have signed this petition are very concerned that, since 2015, violent crime has increased by 32%, gang-related homicides have increased by over 90%, violent repeat offenders obtain bail much more easily, and increased daily activity of crime and violence is putting Canadians at risk.
These are the stats, but if I ask any Canadian whether crime is getting better or worse in Canada, the vast majority believe we are headed in the wrong direction. It is time to change course with the tired government.
Gaétan Malette Conservative Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to table more petitions for a safer and more reliable Ontario Highway 11 portion of the Trans-Canada Highway.
At the intersections of highways 11 and 101 in northern Ontario lies the town of Matheson. Whenever a major storm or accident forces Highway 11 to close, transport trucks and commuters are often left stranded in Matheson due to dangerous driving conditions. These closures place a significant strain on Matheson, delay the delivery of essential goods and prevent people from getting home safely.
Matheson is just one of many northern Ontario communities paying the high price for the poor conditions along Highway 11. It is time to designate that part of the Trans-Canada Highway as a project of national interest.
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition signed by over 5,000 Canadians. I am going to read it verbatim. Whereas public confidence in federal leadership is essential to the effective functioning of Canada’s democratic institutions, many Canadians have expressed concerns regarding transparency, accountability, and decision-making at the highest levels of federal leadership, and recent developments in federal leadership, including—
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I apologize to the member opposite, but he just said that he is going to read the petition verbatim. Members cannot read a petition in the chamber.
Government AccountabilityPetitionsRoutine Proceedings
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
Mr. Speaker, I will summarize the last paragraph. Recent developments in federal leadership, including the role and influence of the Prime Minister, have raised questions among Canadians about governance and public trust.
The petitioners are asking the Government of Canada to take immediate and meaningful action to restore public trust and confidence in federal leadership, as they are concerned about federal leadership, accountability and transparency, including pursuing appropriate democratic processes that allow Canadians to express their confidence in the current government.
Michael Kram Conservative Regina—Wascana, SK
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to present petition e-7622 on behalf of concerned members of the Pakistani Canadian community.
Signers of the petition are disturbed by the Liberal government's decision to have the Minister of Foreign Affairs meet with the Pakistani Minister of Interior while visiting Islamabad last summer. This individual has been known to engage in targeted state-sanctioned harassment against families of Canadian citizens and members of the Pakistani diaspora.
Signers of the petition are calling on the government to ensure that future collaborations with the Pakistani Ministry of Interior be conditional on its immediate cessation of harassment against the families of Canadian citizens.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to present this petition here today in the House of Commons.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I will not break the rules. I am just asking that all questions be allowed to stand.
Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings
Alleged Premature Disclosure of Information Concerning Bill C-39—Speaker's RulingPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings
The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia
I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on October 5 by the member for Saint-Jean regarding the lack of technical briefings for members provided by government officials.
In raising her question of privilege, the member alleged that the government committed a contempt of the House by providing a media-only, closed-door technical briefing on the west coast oil pipeline, now known as “Pacific Link”, before the project was announced. She stated that members did not have access to a similar briefing, despite having requested one. As a result, she said, members were prevented from obtaining privileged information about a project of national interest to which the media were given access.
The member noted that the Chair has repeatedly ruled that providing legislative information to the media, but not to members, before that information is presented to the House is a matter of privilege. She argued that this principle of primacy should also apply to programs and policies on which the opposition parties may need to take a position.
In response, the deputy government House leader pointed out the importance of distinguishing briefings on legislative measures from those on policies. In her view, since the government's briefing was an update on a public policy, not a legislative measure to be introduced in the House, the government was within its rights to provide information to the media. She concluded by citing a decision by Speaker Parent from April 11, 1997, in which he stated that the Chair has no control over these events.
As both these members said, members must be first to know about the contents of legislative measures. Briefings provided to the media before members have, in the past, given rise to questions of privilege on the premature disclosure of bills, and these have been ruled prima facie cases of privilege. These contempts were based on the convention that members must be the first to be informed of the substance of legislative measures, as described in section 3.14 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, fourth edition. The member for Saint-Jean seemed to suggest that this convention now be extended to announcements of government proposals.
The issue here is therefore to determine whether providing information about a public policy or program to an external audience, in private or in public, before members are so informed is a contempt.
Past decisions of the Chair show that for a contempt to exist, it must be demonstrated that a proceeding in the House or the ability of members to fulfill their parliamentary duties was affected.
One of my predecessors made this same point in a ruling delivered on March 3, 2014, at pages 3429 and 3430 of the Debates:
When a situation is brought to the Chair's attention, it must be assessed within the somewhat narrow confines of parliamentary procedure and precedents....[T]he Chair must assess whether the member has been obstructed in the discharge of [their] responsibilities in direct relation to proceedings in Parliament....[A] member who is preparing to participate in proceedings—whether through a technical briefing or some other means—is not participating in the proceedings themselves. While such preparation is no doubt important, it remains ancillary to, rather than part of, Parliament's proceedings.
Therefore, while the Chair agrees that members should have timely access to accurate information and, like a number of previous Chairs, finds it disappointing that the government gives the media priority over members, the Chair cannot conclude in this case that there is a prima facie question of privilege.
I thank members for their attention.
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
moved: That, given that,(i) culture is central to Quebec’s identity,(ii) the cultural sector plays a critical role in Quebec’s economy,(iii) the media and cultural production sectors are facing serious pressures that hamper their development,(iv) the government nevertheless abolished the Digital Services Tax levied on the U.S. digital corporate giants,the House call on the government to:(a) uphold the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission’s decisions imposing levies on streaming services, as set out in the Broadcasting Act; and(b) make the interim payment of $600 million promised to the cultural sector for the current year.
Mr. Speaker, today is an important day because we are once again bringing an issue to the floor of the House that is very important to us, namely culture, and, more specifically and as a priority, Quebec and francophone culture.
Before I begin my speech, I would like to extend my heartfelt congratulations to the MNA for Matane-Matapédia-Mitis in the Quebec National Assembly, Pascal Bérubé, who was appointed Minister of Culture, Heritage, Communications and the French Language. Pascal Bérubé is a highly capable and passionate man, as we saw at his swearing-in ceremony yesterday, and certainly someone who will fight for culture with the same passion and commitment to Quebec identity for which he is so well known.
Today's motion is important to the Bloc Québécois. It is also of vital importance to the cultural sector. Earlier this week, the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, or CDCE, was on Parliament Hill, accompanied by dozens of representatives from its member organizations. I took the opportunity to get a sense of their mood and take stock of the situation, since it is important to do that from time to time. I wanted to know whether the concerns and priorities we are advancing on behalf of the cultural sector are still relevant. I also wanted to find out whether we are, as my former colleague from La Prairie always said, “on the right track”.
It is worse than I thought. The cultural sector is facing an unprecedented crisis. What is particularly troubling is that we have been warning about this crisis for years, yet the sector continues to receive little more than piecemeal support, despite the widely recognized urgent need for adequate, fair, sustainable, predictable, long-term funding. We can pile on all the adjectives we want. It is simply unacceptable that culture be left in this state of precariousness year after year, budget after budget.
The motion that we are tabling today is not that complicated. First, we want to speak out against this government's abandonment of culture, an abandonment that, in my view, has been almost systematic since it entered office in April 2025. The Liberals have done nothing but backtrack on cultural issues. Let me explain, although I suspect they will rise later to tell me that significant amounts were allocated to culture in budget 2025 and will be announcing good news in the coming weeks. Not abandoning culture involves more than giving away money now and then. It involves a commitment to fund the cultural sector in a meaningful way. First, we are facing an economic situation involving a southern neighbour ready to rock the boat at every opportunity. Our economic situation demands that we strengthen our sectors as much as possible. When we can, we must. When it comes to culture, we can. We have the means; they have been requested and demonstrated and they constitute a logical choice for ordinary, average people. Failing to act would be alarmingly irresponsible.
Even the Liberals have been campaigning for years to bring in a system to ensure fairness in the broadcasting and cultural sector. Bill C-11, which I had the pleasure, so to speak, of working on for several years, was drafted in collaboration with and at the request of this Liberal government. However, the conclusion of that study, that work, was to give the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, the responsibility, under the new Online Streaming Act, of establishing a system that would ensure that American digital companies—those multibillion-dollar companies that call the shots wherever they go and that governments lack the courage to regulate—contribute their fair share.
The most logical approach is the one that has been used for decades with the traditional broadcasters and that is to impose some form of levy. That is what the CRTC has done. The CRTC worked on this for a long time, as it usually does, holding hearings and listening to representations from various stakeholders in the industry, and concluded that the right approach was to impose a 5% levy, a decision that was subsequently revised, resulting in a 15% levy.
What did the government do? It did not say, finally, a fair way to establish a framework to ensure that companies making billions of dollars off our culture and our broadcasting system contribute so that people can continue to create and produce content that reflects who we are and ensures that Quebec culture, francophone culture and Canadian culture remain very much alive and can develop, continue to evolve and be the envy of many countries around the world in this ever-changing digital landscape.
I mentioned earlier that the government will boast about having invested funds in budget 2025. It did invest in a number of sectors, including the audiovisual sector, and that was certainly appreciated. However, while the budget provided hundreds of millions of dollars to various areas of the cultural sector, some sectors facing even more acute challenges than others were completely overlooked.
There was unanimous support for increasing the budget of the Canada Council for the Arts by $140 million. It received $6 million. Sectors such as entertainment presenters, cultural presenters, the visual arts and the performing arts were entirely ignored in this budget, and yet they are on the front lines sustaining culture, theatre, dance and other artistic disciplines.
We need to support the entire cultural sector. It is not a collection of isolated groups. It is an ecosystem, an integrated whole that must function effectively and generate benefits throughout the sector. When the cultural community as a whole is properly supported, all of its sectors thrive. It is a vital part of both the Quebec and Canadian economies, and one that we simply cannot do without. The evidence is clear.
I am fed up with hearing that the cultural sector is being funded or subsidized. That is not what is being done. We invest in culture, and that brings in billions of dollars for the Canadian economy. We cannot do away with that, especially at a time when we need to affirm our identity and protect our culture. We have been experiencing this in Quebec for decades now. I get the impression that, in Canada, people are also starting to realize that culture is important and that they need to protect their identity. Perhaps this would be a good time to learn from Quebec's traditional demands on the matter.
As I said earlier, CDCE representatives spent the week on the Hill. Their demands remain unanimous: They want the money they were promised, but they also want a system in place that will reassure them. The only way to reassure them is to have a funding system that is not subject to the government's whims.
The government cannot say that, this year, when it scrapped the 5% or 15% levies, it replaced that with $600 million, as promised. The government might say that this is great news because, next year, it intends to do the same thing and even index the amount. Next year, the amount would be $800 million. The government believes this should please the cultural sector. However, the year after that, the amount might drop to $200 million, which might put everyone into a bit of a pickle. Then, the year after that one, another government might be in power that is not interested in culture and might decide to get rid of it. We would be back at square one. It is unacceptable for the government to take this approach. It is important to create a system that reassures all cultural sector stakeholders. This means fair funding for culture and a significant contribution from big tech.
There is the money, and then there is the principle. I hear the government saying that levies cannot be imposed on digital companies because they will simply pass the cost on to consumers. That is hogwash, so as not to use an expression that the Chair would reprimand me for. What a load of nonsense. Let us look at what has happened elsewhere, particularly in Europe. I was just at the French embassy yesterday with officials from the CDCE, and we discussed this very issue. Europe has imposed such levies. The European Union itself has imposed levies and has allowed other EU states to do the same, which France and others have done. The reality is that there has been no decrease in subscriptions to the digital platforms that are already generating billions of dollars in profits, and there has not been any dramatic increase in consumer costs.
By choosing to fund culture itself rather than have the digital companies do it, the government is passing the bill on to Canadians. When Canadians are asked what concerns them the most right now, they point to the cost of living. Everything is becoming more expensive. However, Canadians are now being handed a $600‑million bill when the digital companies, which are raking in billions of dollars on the backs of our creators, are the ones that should be funding culture.
That is the purpose of our motion today. I have a hard time imagining how the Liberal government, which has always claimed to support culture, or at least given the appearance of that, could oppose our motion. I would take a very dim view of that.
Opposition Motion—Funding of the Cultural SectorBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Toronto—St. Paul's Ontario
Liberal
Leslie Church LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Secretaries of State for Labour
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments today. I want to ask him if he can explain why the Bloc Québécois voted against budget 2025, which included unprecedented support for Quebec's cultural industries.
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Madam Speaker, a budget is like a big stew. There are all sorts of things in there. We can love corned beef but not cabbage. When we vote for a budget, we are voting for a series of measures. Before a budget is tabled, parties make requests. We have recommendations to make for the budget. The Bloc Québécois had 11 amendments, many of which were culture-related. None of the Bloc Québécois's recommendations, particularly those concerning culture, were included in the budget.
When the Liberals ask us why we voted against funding measures for culture, it is because they did not listen. They did not get the job done. They botched the job. In that case, we take responsibility, we stand up for our people and our culture, and we vote against it.
Opposition Motion—Funding of the Cultural SectorBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for bringing this forward.
For 11 years, we have seen broken promise after broken promise. Another promise the government made, with regard to an industry that is, I know, as important to Quebec as it is to British Columbia, is that it has, for 11 years, promised to secure a softwood lumber agreement. Today, over 30 mills have closed in my riding. Thousands of British Columbians are out of work.
Why should Quebeckers feel that the Liberal government would deliver on this promise when it has broken every other promise it has made to Quebec, and to the nation, over the last 11 years?
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
That is a very good question, Madam Speaker, and I thank my colleague for asking it.
My colleague is obviously generalizing; he is really broadening the scope of the issue, but fundamentally, I understand that we are talking about broken promises. In our motion today, we are addressing a promise that, while not yet broken, has not yet been kept, and that is very concerning. I am talking about the $600 million. This $600 million is not a request from Quebec. It is an amount intended for Canada's entire cultural sector. As a result, it is not just about a request from Quebec. Of course, the Bloc Québécois is more focused on Quebec's demands, that is well known, but in this case, it is a promise to all Canadians and to Canada's entire cultural sector, which, I would like to remind you, generates hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue annually.