44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 13, 2022 11:00AM
Madam Speaker, I would first like to thank my hon. colleague from Lévis—Lotbinière for his bill seeking to make changes to EI.
I am really happy to be speaking to this bill today, and I have enjoyed the debate because my colleagues from Salaberry—Suroît, Windsor West and Elgin—Middlesex—London have brought forward a lot of really good points. I think that speaks to the bill, that we have a lot of people speaking about the need for employment insurance reform and that members are bringing forward various examples.
What I would like to speak to, though, is what we have been doing in employment insurance reform and then speak to what I have heard today in debate.
On June 29, 2021, Bill C-30, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures, contained the provisions to amend the EI sickness benefit to bring it from 15 weeks to 26 weeks. It received royal assent back in June of last year and will go into effect this summer, when we will move from 15 weeks to 26 weeks. We did this because we recognized that the need for increased weeks of employment insurance is sometimes necessary for those who are sick.
Last summer, the minister joined the commissioners of the Canadian Employment Insurance Commission to launch the first phase of a two-year consultation on the future of the EI program. To reach as many Canadians as possible, the minister asked her department to launch a consultation portal, which included an online survey, where all interested Canadians could share their views. The survey was open from August 6 to November 19 last year and drew more than 1,900 responses. Approximately 60 written submissions came from a cross-section of labour, employer and other groups. The minister personally attended many of the 10 national and 11 regional round tables to hear feedback on how the EI program can better serve Canadians. Input was received from over 200 stakeholders across the country, including employer and employee organizations, unions, academics, self-employed worker and gig worker associations, parents and family associations and health organizations, to name a few.
The overarching goal is to bring forward a vision for a new and modern El system that is simpler and more responsive to the needs of workers and employers. The first round of the consultations focused on key priorities related to improving access to El, including how to address the temporary emergency measures that will expire this fall. We are also examining whether El meets the evolving and diverse needs of Canadian families. As we have heard today in some of the debate, it seems there are some areas that we still need to look at.
For example, how do we make maternity and parental benefits more flexible and more inclusive for adoptive parents? There are differing views, obviously, and I know that the minister has found unanimous commitment on the part of both employer and employee representatives to develop a modern El program that is resilient, accessible, adequate and financially sustainable. The government is planning a second phase of round table consultations by summer.
Aside from the information, advice and recommendations from the round tables and online consultation, there are several other reviews, evaluations and reports available. In particular, I want to highlight the excellent work done in 2021 by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, which included 20 recommendations on modernizing the El program.
As we have heard, the El program has been a crucial part of Canada's social safety net since 1940. As we also heard today, we obviously need to get this right. My colleagues talked a little about severe illnesses, for instance, the case of cancer. We never want someone to feel like they have to go back to work if they are ill.
When someone has cancer, we want them to focus on fighting the disease and getting better. We do not want them worrying about paying their rent or buying groceries, or what they are going to do if they do not have insurance.
I was told about some such cases in my riding, and that included friends of mine. I have a friend who is in the restaurant business and he had prostate cancer when he was 40 years old.
He did not have private insurance. He came to speak to us and was very frank. Instead of focusing on his treatments, he worried about losing his home and not being able to take care of his children. He spoke about what he called the business of cancer, something we never really think about. We think about the person receiving treatment, about them winning the fight against cancer, but we do not think about the human side and the financial aspects of this fight, or of its impact on the family.
Today, I listened to my colleagues from Salaberry—Suroît, Windsor West and Elgin—Middlesex—London, who talked about similar cases. Some people need more than 15 weeks, others more than 26 weeks. That is why we held consultations.
When we debate private members' bills, I always listen to the various positions and points being raised. We had a really good debate this morning, and I want to again commend my colleague from Lévis—Lotbinière for his Bill C‑215.
I think, when we are debating legislation, what is really important is to listen to all of our colleagues across the way. This was a really good debate where examples clearly demonstrated that 26 weeks may not be enough and we might need more.
I know that a previous piece of legislation, very similar to this one, did require royal recommendation. I believe, in this case, it will require that as well. I believe this piece of legislation has the support of the Conservatives, the NDP and the Bloc at the moment. I do not know who on my side is supporting it because it is a private member's bill. I think members brought forward very interesting arguments as to why we need to take a look at this and see if 26 weeks is sufficient.
I have not made up my mind, and I am sure there are people behind me or in the lobby who are saying that I am at it again, but I have not made up my mind on whether I will support this bill at second reading to go to committee. I think some interesting arguments have definitely been presented today.
The bill will likely need to address specific cases, such as cancer or severe illness, that require more weeks of benefits for those who need them. I know that not all Canadians have access to private or employer-provided insurance.
I think that is something that must—
1176 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
As I was saying, I think it would be a good idea to revisit our EI program. I know the minister has done research and held public consultations and will continue to do so.
Bill C‑215 needs royal assent to be implemented. When it comes up for voting this Wednesday, we will see what happens.
I would like to once again thank my colleague from Lévis—Lotbinière for his bill and all my colleagues who took part in the debates in the House. I think they raised some good points, very specific and useful points, to persuade all members to support Bill C‑215.
117 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/22 11:53:27 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/22 3:24:11 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak tonight about Motion No. 16 in support of Bill C-11 and about the importance of getting this piece of legislation through the House as quickly as possible.
The online streaming act is a crucial step in fostering a more inclusive Canada. Online streaming is quickly becoming the most important way in which Canadians consume audio and audiovisual content. Media have a big impact on how we see the world and how we see each other.
Canadians, creators, producers and broadcasters have been waiting for this legislation for many years. The last major reform to this legislation was in 1991, the year I graduated from high school, and as members can see from the colour of my hair, this was quite a while ago.
We have to act now. I urge all members of this House to focus on the important nature of this bill, which is to provide greater support to Canadian artists and creators from all communities and backgrounds. It is therefore essential that we move forward quickly with Bill C-11 so that our Canadian broadcasting system can thrive in the digital age.
It is great that many of my colleagues in the opposition understand the urgency of Bill C-11. Unfortunately, the Conservatives have taken every opportunity to delay and block us from moving forward on our study of the legislation, and I will speak more about that a little later in my speech.
Our objective is to have diverse and representative voices in the broadcasting sector, including in online streaming services. In this way, we create the space for Canadians from official language minority communities, racialized communities and Canadians of diverse ethnocultural backgrounds, socio-economic statuses, abilities and disabilities, sexual orientations, gender identities and expressions, and ages to tell those stories.
Over the years, the Broadcasting Act and the regulatory system it created have helped ensure that stories created by and for Canadians continue to be created and appreciated by Canadians. That will remain its main objective.
Bill C‑11 will put today's viewing and listening audiences, including the diverse and marginalized voices that have historically been under-represented in the broadcasting system, in the spotlight. Bill C‑11 recognizes that some communities have had very little choice in terms of content, be it created by them or for them or in a way that accurately reflects their reality.
I am very pleased to have the opportunity today to talk about how the online streaming act would help ensure that Canada's broadcasting system will appropriately reflect and support diverse audiences, creators and artists, and this is to the benefit of all of us. Our broadcasting system has aspired to embody the important Canadian values of fairness, respect and inclusion. Canadian audiences have always been diverse, and we have seen the broadcasting system evolve to better serve their needs and represent all Canadians.
It is because of these values that we have had broadcasting in French and English right from the start.
It is those same values that underpin the extension of television broadcasting services, first to underserved rural and remote communities, then to the north, and then through the introduction of closed-captioning in the 1980s.
The values of fairness, respect and inclusion are behind the move to offer broadcasting choices in languages other than French and English and to remove some barriers to broadcasting these services on radio and television.
These values have been the basis for creating a more representative and inclusive production sector through contributions from the Canada Media Fund. Public funds further support efforts to promote diverse Canadian creators, including spaces like the Vancouver Asian Film Festival and organizations like the Black Screen Office.
These values have made us leaders on the world stage with respect to children's programming focused on diversity and inclusion. Our children can watch the wonderful stories of Teepee Time on APTN or Chevalier héroïque on TFO.
However, as the world sees growing ignorance and racism, including the rise of xenophobia, we know that more needs to be done. There remains a gap. There is a gap between the reality of the Canada we live in and the diverse and inclusive Canada we strive for.
In 2020, approximately 63% of Canada's Black population reported experiencing discrimination five years prior to the beginning of the pandemic or during the pandemic, nearly double the proportion of the white population at 32%. Discrimination does harm. It is associated with adverse impacts on social and psychological outcomes, including less trust in public institutions such as Parliament, our justice system, police and schools.
I would like to share a quote from Joan Jenkinson, the executive director of the Black Screen Office, in her appearance at the heritage committee study of Bill C-11. It really captures exactly why this bill is so important.
She stated:
Canadians of all backgrounds have not had access to programming within the Canadian broadcasting system that authentically reflects the diversity of this country.
Through broadcasting we can make space for different stories to be told, and those stories need to be told. Representation matters. Canadians should be able to see more of themselves reflected in the media they stream in a way that honours their identities. Canadians have the right to share these stories in a way that is culturally relevant and appropriate.
Our broadcasting system must continue to meet the needs of different groups and be inclusive for all Canadians. However, at a time when digital services have become more and more predominant, we must support the development of the work of these artists and creators. It is also extremely important that their projects receive fair contributions that take systemic barriers into account.
We want the future Atom Egoyans, Robert Lantoses, Sandra Ohs, Xavier Dolans, Ivan Reitmans and Nia Vardaloses of this world to find the support they need to tell their stories. To truly have the diversity and representation that we are proud of in Canada, it must be built into the broadcasting system.
What are we doing now? Broadcasting is about cultural policy. Canadian culture is not monotonous, static or monolithic; it is a living, breathing, dynamic element of who we are. We need an audiovisual sector that reflects that we are bold, dynamic and inclusive.
Our government's strong commitment to inclusivity is demonstrated through ongoing initiatives, including budget 2021, which provided $60 million in new funding over three years specifically for the Canada Media Fund to increase support for people from equity-deserving groups working in the Canadian audiovisual industry. These resources help the CMF to realize its equity inclusion strategy and deliver on its mandate to enable a diversity of voices.
On top of this, the COVID‑19 recovery fund extended the previous third-language COVID relief allocation through the CMF for another two years to provide further supports for independent television production in languages other than English and French.
Our budget commitments and mandate letters clearly show that our government continues to prioritize diversity and inclusion.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage is currently working with the Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion to provide racialized artists and journalists the support needed for their productions, adequate investment to support local journalism in underserved communities, and new funding to provide diverse communities with the tools needed to tell their own stories and to promote the diversity of voices in the arts, culture and media.
With the growth of streaming services that provide unlimited content, we must ensure that the values of equity, respect and inclusion are given even more space in the regulation of the Canadian broadcasting system.
That is why Bill C-11 underscores the need for diversity, inclusion and representation.
The online streaming act amends the Broadcasting Act to make the broadcasting sector more inclusive for all Canadians. It enhances the objective of the law whereby the broadcasting system should
serve the needs and interests of all Canadians — including Canadians from racialized communities and Canadians of diverse ethnocultural backgrounds, socio-economic statuses, abilities and disabilities, sexual orientations, gender identities and expressions, and ages — and reflect their circumstances and aspirations, including equal rights, the linguistic duality and multicultural and multiracial nature of Canadian society and the special place of Indigenous peoples within that society
This objective will broaden access to the system and provide programming for these communities that speaks to their needs and interests regardless of their preferred broadcasting medium. As before, the government intends to direct the CRTC to support and promote programming and creators from diverse communities and backgrounds. Whether they stream programs over the Internet, over the airwaves or through a cable system, the CRTC will be equipped to ensure that Canada's broadcasting system provides programming for, about and by persons from diverse communities.
I want to reflect again on the importance of understanding this. Whether they stream programs over the Internet, over airwaves or through a cable system, the CRTC will be equipped. Essentially, we are making sure that the channel on which this content is sent to Canadians is equalized, because right now it is not.
I would like to speak a bit about Motion No. 16 and the procedures.
I get a lot of questions from citizens in my riding who say they do not understand, a vote came up, this happened or I heard this, and they ask why this is happening. I will be honest. I have been here almost seven years now and I am a bit of a procedural geek. I really like procedure, so I read the Standing Orders often. I have read Bosc and Gagnon and Beauchesne's. I like reading more and more about the procedures. When I explain to citizens who write to me how things work in the House procedurally, often at the end of the conversation people say they did not realize that. In a perfect world, these little procedural tactics, which I am assuming everyone uses when they are in opposition, would be known to people.
Let us think about procedure. This piece of legislation was introduced in early 2022. It was in a previous government and brought back. Members voted to send it to committee at second reading. The majority in the House agreed that it should go to committee. At committee, committee members agreed that they would allow 20 hours of witness testimony on this bill before reporting it back to the House. This was agreed upon by the members in the committee.
Seven hours of that time were then spent filibustering by the Conservatives. It is a procedural tactic that is used, I guess, by all opposition members at committee and so on. However, that prevented part of the CRTC from presenting. It also prevented the minister from testifying and answering questions. Right now, the committee cannot even get to clause-by-clause to bring forward amendments by the opposition.
I understand full well that the Conservatives, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP may want to propose amendments to the bill. However, we cannot even get to that stage because the Conservatives on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage are obstructing the process.
We cannot learn, talk or debate about these amendments or the concerns people say they have, because the reality is that they are being blocked by their own members. The Conservatives are actually blocking their own motions.
I have been listening to the debate in the House today and I have heard from my colleagues. I come from Quebec.
In Quebec, our artists are incredible. Artists want the bill to move forward. It is urgent.
What I heard today is people saying, “Look, we like it. We've heard. We know that this piece of legislation is important. We need it to move forward.” On the other side, I heard the Conservatives saying that we need more time to debate it, but they had seven additional hours at committee with which they filibustered, when they could have been hearing from additional witnesses who they thought were necessary. It is kind of chicken-and-egg. Did they want to debate and hear from more witnesses, or did they want to filibuster?
We have a thing called parliamentary privilege here in the House, which means that I can stand up in the House and I can say whatever I want, because I have parliamentary privilege. I can say that this bill is doing x, y and z when I know it is not.
This bill is not about the users and the creators. This is about the platform. This is making sure that whatever platforms someone is using, whether it be YouTube, Amazon Prime or Netflix, they are following the same rules as the airwaves or television and they are contributing to Canadian content. This is not someone uploading a cat video. Trust me, I love cat videos. I can watch them all day. After a day here in the chamber, I love a good cat video. We are not going after the cat video creators. That is not what we are doing. What we are saying is that the big broadcasting companies that are using the Internet and livestreaming need to pay their fair share and they also need to contribute to our culture.
I know I have a few minutes left, but I have to get this in there. I have a couple of colleagues who know that I am a new grandma. I am a first-time grandmother and I got to see my grandson on the weekend. He is seven weeks old. Of course, I am asking them how to calm a crying baby. It has been a while since I had a crying baby in the house. They said he likes to listen to this music that is on YouTube, called CoComelon. Anyway, it is singing and it is on YouTube. It is funny, but to get the baby to stop crying I am playing CoComelon so that he can hear the music that he really likes. We sing along with it.
However, YouTube is not contributing to our cultural content or to our industry, and it needs to. I want to make sure that my grandchild can hear music and watch television and shows, whatever way he streams it, because I am assuming things will change in another 15 years when he is older, and that he will also be able to see Canadian content that is reflective of our Canada, with indigenous voices and racialized voices, the real reflection of Canada.
For our two official languages, it is important to support our cultural industry in Quebec. For that reason, I urge all members of the House to vote in favour of Bill C‑11.
2488 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the reality is that this piece of legislation was reintroduced in the 44th Parliament. Now, the election happened on September 20, and the House resumed in December. As the member opposite knows, the House also breaks for Christmas at the end of December until the end of January. The bill was then introduced in February, so it was actually reintroduced within the first six weeks of sitting of the new legislature, and it was brought forward because it is so important.
Members across the aisle know how important the bill is, and many have said that they are going to support it. While the member mentions that he feels there was a delay of four months, when we look at the legislative calendar or the actual sitting calendar, it was actually reintroduced quite quickly.
136 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question and her kind words.
It does not help the debate when members rise in the House and say that this bill is not going to let people create content for YouTube or other platforms, even though they know that is not true.
It is not true that creators and users will be penalized for creating their content. This bill targets every mechanism for communicating that content, including TV, radio, the Internet and big players like Netflix and Amazon. The bill aims to ensure that they all abide by the same laws and invest in our culture, our artists and our creators.
There is no reason to be wary of this bill. Its purpose is not to target individuals sharing their projects and demonstrating how to do things on Pinterest. Its purpose is to get the big players like Netflix and Amazon Prime to play by the same rules as TV and radio.
162 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am sure my colleague across the way is going to give me some good ideas for songs I could be singing to my grandson.
I know that when we looked at this in a previous Parliament, in terms of the loss of revenue and loss of contribution, the amounts were in the millions and millions of dollars. I do not know whether the committee, in its study of this bill, has also looked at that. I would have to check that and get back to the member on whether there were actual updated figures from that, in terms of possible contributions to the fund from these web giants.
111 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I know that, as a member of the heritage committee, my colleague is doing great work there, and as he is a professional artist, I am incredibly honoured to serve with him.
That is how committees work. There is a piece of legislation, and members submit witnesses they want to hear from. The witnesses come and testify. Overwhelmingly, the artists across Canada and in the industry have said that this is important legislation and that it needs to be done. Do 100% of people say they are in support of this? No, but that is why it is at committee, and that is why, during the 20 hours of dedicated time that the committee members all agreed to, those questions and amendments could be brought forward, but that is not what is happening. If that were truly happening and they still felt they had concerns, that would be a different story and we would not be talking about Motion No. 16, but unfortunately that is not what is happening.
When I hear members across the way, during QP and Statements by Members, saying that all of a sudden people across Canada are not going to be able to upload their videos or their content, that is not correct; that is factually incorrect. Unfortunately, that is what gets people going, and then they write to us. When we correct the record, they say that now they get it.
The reality is that this is not what this bill is about; this bill is about making sure the platforms that are not currently covered under the same rules as radio and television are included. That is the purpose of this bill.
281 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite just mentioned in a response that he had amendments to this bill. During the seven hours of filibustering at the heritage committee, those amendments could have actually been brought forward when they got to clause-by-clause.
If he feels that he did not get to bring forward amendments, he might want to ask his colleagues on the heritage committee about it. They prevented it from getting to clause-by-clause, thus preventing amendments being brought forward.
82 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the way was talking about receiving emails from people who had concerns about the bill. I know that members in the House can say whatever they want in the House and then post it on their Facebook, Twitter and so on. I am curious if the member has had any communications in his householders on Bill C-11 and what he says to members in his community about it that is resulting in people contacting him from across Canada. The previous speaker mentioned that he gets tons of emails from across Canada, as do I, from people not in my riding, about certain legislation.
Does the member opposite feel his party is maybe playing into the fact that they are igniting this fake outrage about this piece of legislation?
134 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/22 8:02:51 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
