SoVote

Hon. Mark Holland (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

May/5/22 3:11:25 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, of course, those documents were made available through NSICOP. The Conservatives said they did not want to see them, so then we created a new process, through an MOU, to have an independent panel of jurists who would determine what could be made public and what could not, to protect national security. Did the Conservatives decide to participate? No, they did not, so I am confused. Do they want to see the documents or do they not? We have had two processes and two offers for them to see them. They continue to say no. It leads one to believe that they just want to play a partisan game and that it is all a big joke.

119 words

All Topics

Mr. Lloyd Longfield (Guelph, Lib.)

May/5/22 3:12:04 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my riding of Guelph continues to see significant growth in green technology and agriculture, sectors that we know are vital to Canada's economic prosperity, through organizations like Innovation Guelph and Bioenterprise. Can the Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario inform the House about the measures our government is taking to support the economic growth in these sectors while enhancing the lives of those living in Guelph and Wellington County?

77 words

Hon. Helena Jaczek (Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario, Lib.)

May/5/22 3:12:40 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from the riding of Guelph for his commitment to supporting job creation and economic growth in his riding. I was pleased to visit Guelph last Friday to announce $10 million for green technology development through six regional innovation centres, as well as over $2.6 million in support for community revitalization and tourism projects for the people of Guelph and Wellington County. Our government will continue to make investments like these that grow our economy and improve the lives of Canadians.

90 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/5/22 3:13:18 p.m.
Watch

I am hearing a lot of chatter here. I do not know what has been going on between questions. There is some friendly banter going on here, so maybe call it off. The hon. member for Nunavut.

37 words

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

May/5/22 3:13:29 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-15

Uqaqtittiji, one of the 231 calls for justice calls for the full implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The government committed to doing so in passing Bill C-15, but in courts this week, federal lawyers now say UNDRIP is only an important interpretative aid in the process for discussions. Which is it? Will the Minister of Justice stand to confirm that the rights of indigenous people in Canada are indeed substantive, as stated in UNDRIP?

82 words

Hon. David Lametti (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.)

May/5/22 3:14:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, UNDRIP is a foundational document that we feel will be transformative in restarting the reconciliation process and fulfilling the real promise of Canada, moving forward. I also point out that my predecessor minister of justice implemented a directive on litigation. We are doing our best every day to implement that directive. These are two measures that we feel will help build trust and help build the process of reconciliation as we move forward with implementing UNDRIP.

78 words

Mr. Kevin Vuong (Spadina—Fort York, Ind.)

May/5/22 3:14:55 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we waited for over a year for the government to honour its commitment and promise to the arts community to hold a national arts summit. We have seen the visceral economic and societal damage that this delay has wreaked upon workers. I called for it in February, and then I called for it again in March. Finally, the government got around to it. Can the Minister of Canadian Heritage share with us what came out of the summit? What concrete action can we expect to see, and what can I tell my constituents who have lost their jobs and their livelihoods? Will we see real action, or was the year-long delay just for lip service?

118 words

Mr. Chris Bittle (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.)

May/5/22 3:15:31 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his sudden interest in Canadian heritage. He talks about February, but perhaps he does not remember that the pandemic was raging on. We have been there for our artists since the beginning, and we will continue to be. The pandemic has been tough, but the worst is behind us. It is time to rebuild and look to the future. We were happy to welcome the entire cultural community to Ottawa this week for the cultural summit. Together, we will find a long-term solution to strengthen our culture. Jobs depend on it.

103 words

Ms. Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

May/5/22 3:16:33 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I hope you will find consent for the following motion: That, given that: (i) grassroots actions are taking place today at local, regional, national and international levels in recognition of the National Day of Awareness for Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, (ii) Indigenous women and girls still face unacceptable and rising rates of violence, with 56% of Indigenous women having experienced physical assault and 46% having experienced sexual assault, 64% of First Nations and 65% of Métis women having experienced violent victimization, 42% of Indigenous women having experienced physical or sexual abuse during childhood, and Indigenous women being at least 4.5 times more likely to be murdered than non-indigenous women, (iii) we have witnessed decades of insufficient action from all levels of government to address this crisis with the urgency it deserves, the House call on the government to: (a) immediately implement Call for Justice 3.2 of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls; (b) provide adequate, stable, equitable, and ongoing funding for Indigenous-centred and community-based health and wellness services that are accessible and culturally appropriate; and (c) meet the health and wellness needs of Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people.

210 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

May/5/22 3:18:04 p.m.
Watch

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay. It is agreed. The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay. Hearing none, the motion is carried.

43 words

All Topics

Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.)

May/5/22 3:18:26 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the members for Don Valley West, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, Montarville, Saint-Jean and Edmonton Strathcona, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: Whereas Vladimir Kara-Murza, a trusted leader in the Russian human rights and democracy movement, was unjustly arrested by the Putin regime for having the temerity of telling the truth; Whereas Vladimir Kara-Murza has been poisoned twice, and has been arrested and jailed and could soon face up to a decade or more in prison if found guilty of telling the truth; Therefore, the House calls for the immediate release of Vladimir Kara-Murza, and all other Russian prisoners of conscience; the immediate release of Alexei Navalny; the immediate cessation of hostilities in Ukraine, and the unilateral withdrawal of Russian troops.

142 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

May/5/22 3:19:33 p.m.
Watch

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay. It is agreed. The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay. Hearing none, the motion is carried.

43 words

All Topics

Mr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC)

May/5/22 3:20:00 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to get up on the Thursday question today. There are just a couple of points I want to make. This morning, in case the government House leader was not aware, I did offer to extend hours for this evening so that we could have three extra hours of debate on government business if we had a concurrence motion. I made that offer to the deputy House leader. Unfortunately, they did not allow that to occur. However, there are two particular questions in addition to the House schedule. First, what is the schedule order for the House? Second, on the committee of the whole, could the government House leader indicate whether both ministers we requested will be here in person in the House? Lastly, there is no indication on the calendar that I have received, so perhaps the government House leader, for the sake of the employees around this place, so that they can be prepared, can indicate when late-night sittings are going to happen.

171 words

Hon. Mark Holland (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

May/5/22 3:20:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I understand my hon. colleague has a birthday coming up next week, so I wish him a very happy birthday between now and the next Thursday question. On the question with respect to the ministers the member is requesting be present in the committee of the whole, I will be happy to get back to him on that. With respect to extending sitting hours, I request that the ordinary hour of daily adjournment of the sitting on Wednesday, May 11, 2022, be 12 o'clock midnight, pursuant to an order made Monday, May 2, 2022. I am learning that this is the member's birthday, so he gets an opportunity to celebrate in this august place. This afternoon, we will resume second reading debate on Bill C-11 on broadcasting. Tomorrow and Monday, we will be continuing second reading debate of Bill C-19, the budget implementation act. Next Tuesday and Thursday will be opposition days, and we will return to the second reading of Bill C-11 on Wednesday.

172 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/5/22 3:21:55 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to order made on Monday, May 2, 2022, the minister's request to extend the said sitting is deemed adopted. The hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni is rising on a point of order.

35 words

Mr. Gord Johns

May/5/22 3:22:24 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, for clarification, just before question period, it was my understanding that the member for Kingston and the Islands was still answering questions from his speech and that we were going to return to that. I do not know if there is still time left.

46 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/5/22 3:22:47 p.m.
Watch

We are going to go to a new bill, so we are changing completely. The hon. member for Repentigny.

19 words

Ms. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ)

May/5/22 3:23:03 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Mr. Speaker, it will come as no surprise if I begin my speech by saying that standing up for Quebec culture is at the heart of the Bloc Québécois's mission. It is the focus of every MP sitting with me who belongs to our party. Our culture, our history and the French language, the only official language of Quebec, make us stand out in the broader North American communications landscape. It was therefore natural that the Bloc Québécois should work to improve Bill C‑10 in the previous Parliament. We were very disappointed that it fell by the wayside when the election was called, but I am pleased that it was re-introduced in its new iteration as Bill C-11. These provisions are important to us. Several recommendations that our party made in committee were favourably received by the government before the bill was re-introduced. We salute this spirit of co-operation. Broadcasting legislation has not been touched since 1991, so updating this legislation now is not repressive, nor will it jeopardize any freedoms. Legislation is undoubtedly the most effective way to ensure that there is more equity when it comes to accessing and broadcasting Quebec and Canadian productions. Essentially, this is a way to spotlight Quebec, Canadian, indigenous, regional and other identities. Quebec's and Canada's cultural communities have been waiting for decades for the government to update this legislation. The clock is ticking. The first thing the cultural sector called for was for Parliament to adopt the bill as quickly as possible. I was set to give my speech in February. The Yale report was released two years ago. Things are certainly not moving quickly. The Bloc Québécois has what I would consider an objective view of the 21st century. I often talk about environmental issues. Our positions are based on following the science, taking bold action, implementing strong legislation and so on. Our position on cultural matters is similar, in the sense that we will listen to what sector stakeholders tell us. We need to keep up with the times. The new 21st-century platforms have changed how we interact with the cultural sector as a whole. We therefore need to take bold action and implement strong legislation. Whichever way we look at our culture and its distinctive colour, which is sometimes loud, sometimes muted, this aspect of our existence in society needs to be viewed through the prism of its fragility. Fragility, not weakness. Given the startling evolution of information and communication technologies, only someone who is willfully blind could deny the influences of our neighbours to the south. I said influences, but I sometimes feel like calling them imperialist effects. The questions that came up during the study of this bill would never be asked in the United States. The big U.S. conglomerates and other broadcasting platforms with global reach and territory are not so concerned about fragile cultures like ours, which we would like to be protected. Cultural sovereignty is not an abstract concept. It should never be trivialized. Let us remember part of a speech by my fellow member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert on the importance of this bill: Such is the risk of a people becoming nothing more than one demographic among many. A culture, especially a minority culture like ours, is a precious and delicate garden that could be swept away and destroyed by the fierce winds of technological globalization. If that happens, the world would lose our unique and irreplaceable colour from its spectrum. That would be a tragedy for the entire world, because when a culture dies, it is a loss for all of humanity. That would be infinitely sad. Imagine taking a trip, hoping to explore new horizons, learn new things and get better acquainted with a culture, only to wind up hearing the same music everywhere, seeing the same values and the same social mores. That would be really horrible. That is precisely why this law is needed, so that we can continue to produce our stories, convey our realities in music or on screen, and, above all, promote them around the world. If this possibility disappears, an entire culture will suffer the consequences. Culture is the heart of a nation. When culture is eroded, the nation is affected. Quebec is a nation, Canada is a nation, and our first nations, Métis and Inuit communities are nations. Does anyone here really want to see all that disappear? Content producers want to see this bill passed. The growing cultural sector in Quebec enthusiastically supports the Bloc’s requests, which seek to enhance the bill. The Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc supported Bill C-10 and made an effort to improve it during the session, but the Conservatives were against the bill from the start. The Conservative Party wants the government to intervene as little as possible, and it sees privacy issues everywhere. That is why there has been a major smear campaign. They tried to find all sorts of flaws in the bill, but they were often grasping at straws. The Conservatives used a whole lot of parliamentary manoeuvres to slow down the process. The same thing happened in committee, in both the House and the Senate, despite the fact that the Department of Justice did a legal analysis that stated that there was no impact on freedom of expression. I hope that people believe in the department. The Conservatives, short on arguments, went even lower. The hon. member for Lethbridge talked about Quebec culture as being outdated. That hurt us, heart and soul. We do not necessarily want to listen to American hip hop or Nashville's top 10 country pop hits. Of course, Bill C-11 is garnering considerable interest because all Canadian cultural sectors will benefit from this legislative review. The objective of the new bill is substantially the same. Indeed, Bill C-11 has the same objective as Bill C-10, namely to subject web giants to the Broadcasting Act by forcing them to contribute financially to the creation and discoverability of Canadian cultural content. Why would we stand idly by and do nothing about what is happening right now? The major broadcasters and their web giant partners will have to respond to the Canadian government’s legislative expectations. I am thinking about Netflix, Apple TV+, Disney+, Amazon Prime Video and music streaming services like Spotify, YouTube Music and Apple Music. Our American neighbours sometimes have a chuckle about Canadian culture. They joke about the RCMP’s uniforms, the way we say “eh?” and even poutine and Tim Hortons. They find it all a bit ridiculous. I will bet that the elected members that are fighting the bill tooth and nail do not really see a difference between Canadian and American artistic content. We do see a difference. If we asked these same elected members about Canadian content from emerging artists, they would be surprised to hear that these same artists are in favour of such a law. Once we have clarified the question of the freedom of web users, every Quebec and Canadian cultural sector will benefit. Under the new version of the bill, creators, users and influencers are exempt from the law. Perhaps this was not clear in Bill C-10, but it is in Bill C-11. Canadian and Quebec artistic talent has merit. Just because the dominant language in the rest of Canada is English does not mean that we should bend over backwards and make concessions that go against our cultural identity. To conclude, I will say that being mindful of the identity of peoples and their ways of expressing their culture and sense of belonging is in no way trivial or irrelevant. This is what the Bloc Québécois wants to know: Are we going to govern our digital economy according to our own democratically established laws and regulations, or are we going to keep allowing foreign giants like Google and Facebook impose their rules, mores and standards on us? I would like to believe that it is still possible for all the elected members of the House to listen to reason so that the bill can be unanimously referred to committee for study. The Bloc Québécois is proud to stand strong and defend our culture.

1413 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

May/5/22 3:33:10 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Mr. Speaker, I truly appreciate many of the comments that my friend opposite has put on the record recognizing how critically important our culture is, whether it is the arts, performing arts or others, to Canadians, no matter what part of Canada they live in. This legislation is, in fact, very important. Ultimately, we want to see it pass, but unfortunately the Conservatives seem to be intent on not seeing the legislation pass. If we listen to some of the speakers, they will say we have much more to debate on the issue. Does the member see value in allocating more evening time for debate to try to satisfy the Conservative Party so that hopefully we can get this legislation through before summer?

123 words

Ms. Monique Pauzé

May/5/22 3:34:16 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Mr. Speaker, that is quite the question. We very much want this to be unanimous. It seems there are still items where the text is not yet definitive. We know that words have meaning and that they can sometimes lead to something other than what was intended. If the text of certain sections is problematic, let us debate it and make it clear in committee. That is all we ask. I think that the official opposition party should agree, without unreasonably prolonging debate. The Bloc Québécois was never very happy with the idea of time allocation, even though we found it was necessary in the case of former Bill C-10. However, since certain sections of the former bill were corrected in this version, I would really like the official opposition to provide positive and constructive comments so that we can send Bill C-11 to committee and study it properly.

155 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 65