John Nater

[Government Business No. 16—Proceedings on Bill C-11, June 10th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, I want to open by sharing a quote, which states:

We need to discuss why the government does not listen at committee stage to anything anyone says. It does not accept any amendments from anyone at all, and then it complains that the opposition refuses to allow public consultation.

The quote goes on to say:

We are absolutely not opposed, but we think we should listen to experts and to people who tell the minister what the government should be doing with the bill, but nobody listens in this government.

Do members know who said that? It was the member for Vancouver Centre, the current chair of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. What she said in 2011, we agree with. The current government does not listen. The government does not accept amendments. The government does not accept the testimony and advice of digital-first creators and experts on communications and on the Internet. The government does not listen.

We have heard a lot from the opposition parties that we have had 20 hours of witnesses. The fact is that this committee did not begin studying this bill until May 24: That was 17 days ago. Today, we have Motion No. 16. In the House lately, we are all used to time allocation and closure motions, but this is not just a time allocation motion. This is not just a closure motion. This is a guillotine motion on steroids. This is a motion that not only forces this bill through committee stage and clause-by-clause, but also through the final stages in the House itself. It provides for only one day at report stage, one single day, and there is no guarantee that day has any more than an hour or an hour and a half of debate in the House.

Report stage, as it currently stands, would likely fall on next Friday, meaning that the total time the House would have to debate it, at its very maximum, would be about 150 minutes. There would be 150 minutes to discuss report stage amendments to the largest and most comprehensive updates to the Broadcasting Act in more than 30 years. The government thinks that two and a half hours in the House is sufficient to do that.

As Her Majesty's loyal opposition, we have a duty to play our role: to criticize when warranted, to make amendments and to approve when necessary. That is what we, as Her Majesty's loyal opposition, want to do. We have been clear throughout the process and the debate on this bill and its predecessor bill in the previous Parliament, Bill C-10, that we believe the Broadcasting Act needs to be updated.

The Broadcasting Act dates to 1991. It is a time when VCRs were king, when we had to borrow VHS tapes from the grocery store or the corner store and when the member for South Shore—St. Margarets claims he had hair. I will look for photographic evidence of that. I will point out, because this is relevant, the member was a senior staff member in that government of the day when this legislation first came through. If we consult Hansard from that time and review the comments and commentary by the minister at the time, Minister Masse, we will see that in that time and at that place, the legislation to update the Broadcasting Act and the lead-up to 1991, when it took effect, was done with the broad-based support and consultation not only of members of the House, but also of Canadians. It recognized the challenges that were being faced at that time by broadcasters, by Canadians and by individuals who wanted to see Canadian content creations from across our country.

We want to see the major exhibitions and creations of Quebec creators, and we want them to succeed here and around the world.

We want to see that success, and that is why we are not opposed to necessary updates to the Broadcasting Act. In fact, in our last election platform in 2021, during that unnecessary election that gave us a repeat minority Parliament, we committed to updating the Broadcasting Act, but we committed to doing so in a way that ensured digital first creators were able to succeed and that did not unfairly regulate user-generated content. Now, here we are today with Motion No. 16, which is forcing this bill through Parliament.

I wish I could say I was angry. I wish I could say I was mad. I am not angry, and I am not mad, but I am disappointed. I am disappointed the government would use such an arbitrary and draconian measure as Motion No. 16.

My friend from Edmonton West pointed this out, but it is worth reaffirming what this motion would actually do when it comes to committee resources. Motion No. 16 states “the committee shall have the first priority for the use of House resources for committee meetings”. Members in the House know the hard work interpreters do each and every day. I know sometimes I have difficulty understanding myself in one language, let alone having that translated and interpreted to a second language. The interpreters in this place and in committee do exceptional work interpreting into English and French each and every day, and they deserve our respect.

Over the past two years, the strain and workplace injuries the interpreters in this place have experienced are unacceptable. It is entirely unacceptable. The two official languages of this place, the two official languages of this country, must be respected. It is the interpreters who enable that. It is the interpreters who allow that to happen. However, each and every day we see challenges with resources. We see challenges with the Translation Bureau being able to provide us with sufficient numbers of people who can interpret at committee.

Under this motion, under Motion No. 16, only one committee shall have priority for committee resources. Only one committee shall be able to have its meetings occur no matter what, which is the Canadian heritage committee, so the government can force through its flawed pieces of legislation. No other committee can have that priority.

My friend from South Shore—St. Margarets, on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, would not have priority for committee meetings, and meetings keep being cancelled. My friend from Elgin—Middlesex—London, who chairs the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, would not have priority for House resources. Her committee meetings would be cancelled if the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage needed those resources.

My friend from Edmonton West on the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates has already noted his committees have been cancelled, when they are looking at multi-billion dollar procurement. Those meetings could again be cancelled so the government can push through its repeat legislation, Bill C-11, which was formerly Bill C-10.

If it were only that matter alone, I would say it was sufficient to vote down this flawed motion, but it gets worse. Not only does this motion have a negative impact on each and every other committee, but it also rushes through what ought to be a deliberative process. Subparagraph (ii) states, “amendments to the bill, including from independent members, shall be submitted to the clerk of the committee by 11:59 p.m. on June 13, 2022, and distributed to committee members in both official languages by 9:00 a.m. on June 14, 2022”.

I am sure we are all probably thinking, well, that is Monday, and today is Friday. How does the government expect this motion to take effect by Monday and have amendments due by Monday night? Not only is this a guillotine motion, but this is a guillotine motion that will be guillotined. By the end of business today, a minister of the Crown will stand in their place and state that a minister of the Crown will introduce closure. A minister of the Crown will stand in this place and state that agreement could not be reached and closure will be necessary on Monday.

On Monday, the first order of business, when orders of the day are called, will be a closure motion on a closure motion on steroids, which means that debate will not be further adjourned and that, at 8:00 p.m. on Monday evening, the bells will ring. The Speaker will call in the members, the bells will ring, and at 8:30 p.m. on Monday night, the House will pronounce its judgment on Motion No. 16.

At midnight, under the terms of this motion, amendments would be due, which would be three and a half hours after this motion passes. Amendments on the first update to the Broadcasting Act in 31 years, a complicated and complex matter, would be due in three and half hours.

The government likes to talk about work-life balance, but we, as politicians, are used to this. We are elected. We are well compensated. We are ready and able to work hard, but let us talk about the administration staff of this place. Let us talk about the clerks of our committee, who are now being told that at midnight on Monday night they have to be ready, able and available to accept amendments from each recognized party and from any independent member. This is at 11:59 p.m. on Monday night, and then they have to ensure that each of those amendments are then distributed by 9:00 a.m. the next morning to members of the committee. That is nine hours and one minute, through the dead of night, for the committee clerk and the committee staff to make that happen.

Members, the employees of the House and the employees of Parliament deserve better. They should not be forced into that situation.

It gets worse. After receiving those amendments at 9:00 a.m. on Tuesday, June 14, and this is from the motion, “the committee shall proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of the bill no later than 11:59 a.m. on June 14, 2022”.

Committee members will receive the amendments from all parties and from independent members at 9:00 a.m., and then two hours and 59 minutes later, they will proceed to clause by clause. We will be forced, as parliamentarians and as members of the committee, to pronounce judgment on potentially dozens of amendments that we will have seen for the first time only hours before.

[Points of Order, June 7th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point or order. I would draw your attention to paragraph 489 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, sixth edition, as well as page 3760 of Debates, February 18, 1970, concerning the unparliamentary language used in this place.

Immediately prior to this vote, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, in reference to the member for Windsor West, on two separate occasions, used unparliamentary language. One is the one referred to at page 3760 of Debates, and the other is the French translation of the word “seal”, which is entirely inappropriate for the House.

It offends the dignity of the House, and the member owes an apology to the House and to the member for Windsor West.

[Privilege, June 2nd, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, in response to your ruling, I will take your advice. By unanimous consent, I seek that notwithstanding any standing order, a question to the spokesperson for the Board of Internal Economy may be raised during the proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order 38, and a spokesperson for the board who is not a minister of the Crown or a parliamentary secretary may give the response during those proceedings.

[Canadian Heritage, May 31st, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, what Conservatives know is that we will always stand up for our creative industries and fight on their behalf, so we can see Canadian creators succeed here at home and around the globe.

Yesterday at committee, communications expert Monica Auer said, “gaps in Bill C-11 will make current serious problems with the CRTC's transparency, accountability and timing even worse” and “court challenges of its implementation by the CRTC will create long delays and cost Canada and those working in its creative sectors quite dearly.”

Will the government stand up for new creative industries, admit that its strategy is flawed and fully exempt user-generated content?

[Canadian Heritage, May 31st, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives care about Canadian creators, but the Liberals continue to ignore the negative impacts of Bill C-11. This morning, digital creator and 47-year-old skateboarding mom Oorbee Roy told this to the committee: “not only does this bill not help me; it hurts me and actively undermines my needs.... 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.”

Will the government do the right thing and fully exempt user-generated content and remove proposed section 4.2 from Bill C-11?

[Canadian Heritage, May 30th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, we can support the cultural sector by taking user-generated content out of this bill and letting Canadian creators thrive here at home and internationally.

The Liberals claim that user-generated content will not be included in Bill C-11, yet the chair of the CRTC contradicted the government and said that it would and that it could regulate user-generated content.

We still have not seen the government's policy directive on Bill C-11. The government could do that right now. It could release the policy directive and confirm and make it clear that user-generated content would be excluded from the bill.

[Canadian Heritage, May 30th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, last week, Morghan Fortier, creator of Canada's most-watched YouTube channel, appeared before the heritage committee, and had this to say about Bill C-11:

It's been written by those who don't understand the industry they're attempting to regulate....worst of all, section 4.2 hands sweeping power to the CRTC to regulate the Internet use of everyday Canadians and small businesses.

This is the creator of Canada's most-watched YouTube channel. It is someone we should be celebrating and not holding back. Will the minister make the very simple commitment to remove section 4.2 from Bill C-11?

[Online News Act, May 30th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, we request a recorded division.

[Online News Act, May 30th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I am disappointed because my colleagues and I were looking forward to debating this piece of legislation. So far, the only Conservative member to speak to it has been me, which is unfortunate.

To my colleague, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, it is obviously a forgone conclusion that this bill will be passed and time allocation will be guillotined on this bill.

I want a clear commitment from the minister that he, the government House leader and the whip will not interfere at committee. I want a clear commitment that they will permit the committee to hear from witnesses and that there will not be a guillotine or programming motion at committee and that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage will be permitted to fully explore the bill, hear from witnesses and not be forced into a programming motion.

[Privilege, May 30th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I rise today on a question of privilege concerning the refusal of my request for Adjournment Proceedings, or a late show, concerning my question pursuant to Standing Order 37(2) to a spokesperson for the Board of Internal Economy during the May 16 question period.

On the afternoon of May 16, I followed the provisions of Standing Order 37(3), which states, “A member who is not satisfied with the response to a question asked on any day at this stage,...may give notice that he or she intends to raise the subject matter of the question on the adjournment of the House. The notice referred to herein...must be given in writing to the Speaker not later than one hour following that period the same day.”

The following morning, I received the following message from the Private Members' Business Office: “We are not able to accept your notice for an adjournment debate because Standing Order 38 indicates that only a minister or parliamentary secretary may answer questions during the Adjournment Proceedings.”

While the office was correct in acknowledging that this is what Standing Order 38 says, it overlooked the House's order of October 2, 2001, recorded at page 677 of Journals, which stated:

By unanimous consent, it was ordered, — That notwithstanding any Standing Order, a question to a spokesperson for the Board of Internal Economy may be raised during the proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 38 and a spokesperson for the Board who is not a Minister of the Crown or a Parliamentary Secretary may give the response during those proceedings.

I pointed this order out in a reply email. The answer I received from the Private Members' Business Office was as follows, “Should you obtain unanimous consent, as was obtained on October 2, 2001, we would then accept the notice provided yesterday.”

I had filed my late show notice because I had hoped perhaps there might be more information, which the spokesperson for the Board of Internal Economy, the hon. member for Red Deer—Lacombe, could not have shared in the 35 seconds he had to answer me during question period. Additionally, given that it might be September or October before the late show gets scheduled, perhaps there might even be an update on the file, which then could be shared with this House.

It is my concern that my privileges in being able to raise this matter further are being frustrated, perhaps by a misapprehension of the nature of the order adopted by this House on October 2, 2001. Footnote 127 on page 517 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, describes the provenance of this order:

In 2001, Mauril Bélanger...raised a question of privilege to object that, while oral questions could be put to a representative of the Board of Internal Economy, the Member, if dissatisfied with the reply, could not then discuss the matter further during the Adjournment Proceedings since only Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries could reply to questions during such proceedings. The House later adopted a motion, by unanimous consent, to provide that the spokesperson for the Board, who was not a Minister or a Parliamentary Secretary, respond during the Adjournment Proceedings.

Here we are with yet another question of privilege on the right to have a late show concerning an inquiry about the House of Commons administration. In my view, the House's 2001 order was of a permanent standing nature. Paragraph 20.96 of Erskine May, 25th edition, explains the following:

Orders of a permanent character which ‘stand’ in force from one session to another and (unless indicated otherwise) from one Parliament to another, codify and direct many of the procedures and practices of the House and are known as standing orders. Standing orders may be amended or repealed, or new standing orders introduced, by motion and decision in the House in the normal way; there are no set rules on how such a motion may arise.

Madam Speaker, I draw your attention to page 16 of Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand, fourth edition, which adds:

Some orders of the House have a shorter or longer life than a session. For example, an order of the House may give committees a longer time to report on particular Estimates or annual reviews than is permitted under the Standing Orders. Such an order is spent when the business to which it relates has been dealt with. On the other hand, some orders, although not made into Standing Orders, may come to be regarded as having virtually permanent operation. One such order was passed in 1962 adopting a form of words for the prayer with which the House begins each sitting.

Of course, the wording of our own daily prayer, a matter of recent discussion, traces its approval to a decision of the House found at pages 172 and 174 of the Journals for February 18, 1994. The wording of the prayer has not been approved in every subsequent session, but rather, the 1994 order has proven to be of sufficient authority.

For an example of another House order of a similar enduring nature that was adopted by this House without ever having been catalogued among the numbered and bound Standing Orders, I refer the Chair to pages 72 and 73 of the Journals for November 19, 1984:

By unanimous consent, it was ordered,—That the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs shall have permanently referred to it all annual reports made to Parliament pursuant to section 72 of the Privacy Act and section 72 of the Access to Information Act; and

That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to:

1. consider every report prepared under section 72 of the Access to Information Act and of the Privacy Act;

On the strength of that House order, all annual reports from departments and agencies under the access to information and privacy laws were referred to the justice committee for over 30 years, until just a few years ago, despite the fact that the House created, in 2004, a special committee dedicated to, among other things, access to information and privacy issues.

Only in 2015 was this 1984 House order superseded, after the House adopted an amendment to Standing Order 108(3)(h) concerning the mandate of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics to specify that the committee would receive access to information and privacy annual reports.

In my respectful view, the House's order of October 2, 2001, is of a similar nature and remains in effect today. A plain reading of that order suggests that it was neutrally worded with regard to time in stating, “a question... may be raised... and a spokesperson... may give the response".

Nowhere in the order does it say it is limited to Mr. Bélanger's question or that its application was limited to a single question. Looking beyond the actual wording of the October 2, 2001, order, I would invite the Chair to consider also the motivations which led to its adoption.

In response to Mr. Bélanger's question of privilege, which I described earlier, the then-government House leader, the Hon. Don Boudria said, at page 5722 of the Debates on September 28, 2001:

This is most unfortunate, and creates an injustice. I agree with the hon. member on that. If, in the near future, the clerks could prepare for us the necessary amendment to the Standing Orders, I would be agreeable to discussing it with the other House leaders, with a view to amending the Standing Orders and making things equitable. It seems to me that is the solution.

The following week, when the motion for the October 2, 2001, House order was presented, the then-parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, Geoff Regan, said at page 5883 of the Debates:

Following other discussions among the House leaders I believe you would find, if you were to seek it, unanimous consent for the following motion.

If one were to follow the thread between these events, I think it is patently clear that the order of October 2, 2001, was meant to address, permanently, the gap in the published Standing Orders, which allowed questions to be posed to spokespersons for the Board of Internal Economy but not a late show follow-up or, in other words, in the words of Mr. Boudria, to make an equitable cure to this injustice.

Accordingly, I would respectfully submit that my notice seeking to raise the matter during adjournment proceedings should have been treated as receivable and therefore received by the House administration. Further, the House administration's refusal to accept my late show notice respecting my question about the allegations of Liberal partisanship on the part of the Clerk of the House constitutes a breach of privilege.

I do not make this point lightly. Put simply, pages 81 to 83 of Bosc and Gagnon confirm that “an offence against the authority or dignity of the House, such as disobedience of its legitimate commands” and “acting in breach of any orders of the House” constitute contempt of Parliament.

Should you agree, in addition to permitting my notice to be received by the table, I would be prepared to move the appropriate motion to refer the matter to the procedure and House affairs committee for their consideration.