Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 539, 541, 542, 545 to 548, 550, 553, 557 and 559.

With regard to the contract initially awarded by Shared Services Canada to BMC Software Incorporated (BMC) worth approximately $32.4 million for IT service management: (a) why did the contract increase in value to over $50 million in February 2020; (b) which departments and agencies have migrated all of their IT service management to the BMC software; (c) of the departments that have not yet migrated their IT service management to the BMC software, what percentage of migration has been completed and what is the projected date as to when the migration will be complete; (d) what is the government's estimated total cost to complete the migration; and (e) will it be mandatory for departments and agencies to use the BMC software, and, if not, what alternatives will be made available? With regard to the government's use of single-use plastics: (a) does the government know how many single-use plastics it purchases, and, if so, what is the total amount of single-use plastics purchases made since January 1, 2020, broken down by (i) department, (ii) agency (iii) other government entity; and (b) what are the details of each purchase, including the (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) description of goods, including the volume, (iv) vendor? With regard to Veterans Affairs Canada’s (VAC) online Benefits Navigator: (a) on what date was it established; (b) due to what circumstances was it established; (c) from the date of its creation to May 3, 2022, on what dates was it taken offline, and why; (d) on the date of its last modification, April 27, 2022, what changes were made to it and why; (e) since its creation to May 3, 2022, (i) what features or questions have been added to the questionnaire, (ii) what features or questions have been removed from the questionnaire, and why; (f) in what ways has VAC promoted its existence to veterans; (g) how many individual veterans have (i) applied for, (ii) received, VAC benefits by way of the Benefits Navigator since its creation; and (h) is or was it ever a standard component of VAC’s intake process for benefit applicants, and, if not, what are VAC’s plans to integrate it as a mandatory first point of entry for all applicants? With regard to the Windsor-Detroit Bridge Authority (WDBA) and the design failure related to the Hydro One Conduit Project: (a) does the WDBA accept the independent engineering and geotechnical evidence that the failure was a design-related one, and, if not, why; (b) did the WDBA refuse the industry standard of accessing the professional performance insurance they were required to have, and, if so, why; (c) was the WDBA's contract provided to Amico to correct the design failure awarded through a sole source process, and, if so, why was a competitive bid process not used; (d) did the WDBA or CIMA+ amend the specifications for the remedial work to eliminate the long runs if the failures were due to construction practice and not a design error, and, if so, why was such a decision made; and (e) were the original failures caused by a construction practice involving pumping pressure, and, if so, what is the WDBA's explanation for why the remedial work, which used the same pumping pressures, did not fail in the same manner as the original design? With regard to the Windsor-Detroit Bridge Authority (WDBA) and the Hydro One Conduit Project: (a) did the WDBA consider Farhad Ganji to be in a conflict of interest by managing the CIMA+ review of the WDBA Hydro One Conduit Project as a WDBA employee and former CIMA+ employee; (b) who made the determination to have Farhad Ganji be a lead in the review; (c) to whom did Farhad Ganji report, and to whom did that person report to at WDBA for the WDBA Hydro One Conduit Project; (d) what is the position of the WDBA regarding the independent engineering findings of Kinectrics, Geotherm and Brierly that the Schedule 40 pipe was the wrong pipe to be specified for this project; (e) if the WDBA disagrees with the findings, what evidence is the disagreement based on; and (f) what differences are there between the original work specifications and the second specifications to address the need to conform to the required specifications of Hydro One? With regard to the Windsor-Detroit Bridge Authority (WDBA) and the Hydro One Conduit Project: (a) did WDBA sole source a contract with AMICO for the WDBA Hydro One Conduit Project with an entirely different design criteria that involved the conduit fill specifications changing from 200 metres to 70 metres, and, if so, why; (b) how many days in April of 2022 was the project at a standstill, and why did the standstill occur; (c) what were the total costs incurred by the WDBA associated with the delay, including an itemized breakdown of the costs; (d) did WDBA procure their own independent engineering review of the project in addition to the Kinectric, Geotherm and Brierly reports, and, if not, why; (e) if the answer to (d) is affirmative, what are the details, including the findings of the review; (f) did the WDBA seek recourse against CIMA+ related to the project failures and, if not, why; (g) if the answer to (f) is affirmative, what are the details of the recourse; (h) for the failures on the WDBA Hydro One Conduit Project, what were the terms; and (i) what are the details of all changes in executive leadership at the WDBA that have occurred since January 1, 2022, including any change in either personnel or in the leadership structure? With regard to the Windsor-Detroit Bridge Authority (WDBA) and the Hydro One Conduit Project: (a) on what date did the current WDBA CEO, Bryce Phillips, become aware of the Kinectrics report on the Hydro One Conduit Project; (b) what was the project's injection failure; (c) did WDBA grant CIMA+ full authority over the role of designer and of contract administrator on the WDBA Hydro One Conduit Project, and, if so, (i) who made that decision, (ii) why was that decision made; (d) did the WDBA grant CIMA+ the permission to participate in the discussions with the insurer on the WDBA Hydro One Conduit Project, and, if so, (i) who made that decision, (ii) why was that decision made; (e) if the answer to (d) is affirmative, how does the WDBA address concerns that such discussions could jeopardize the availability of insurer proceeds; and (f) was CIMA+ allowed to compromise on the scope of the insurance on the WDBA Hydro One Conduit Project, and, if so, why? With regard to the current processing delays of immigration applications: (a) what is the average processing time of a permanent residence application; (b) what is the average time between a candidate's initial application and the receipt of an interview for the purpose of obtaining permanent residency; and (c) how many applicants have had to undergo two or more medical exams due to the expiration of the 12 month period for a valid medical exam for the purpose of receiving permanent residency? With regard to the current processing delays of immigration applications: (a) what are the current standards for processing times of applications for the Federal Skilled Worker Program; (b) what is the government's target date for when service standards will return to normal; (c) what are the current standards for processing times for applications for Canadian Experience Class permanent residency; (d) what is the government's target date for when service standards will return to normal; (e) how much did the government pay out in overtime to employees working on permanent residence applications between March 1, 2022, and May 4, 2022; and (f) how many employees are or were working at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada on permanent residence files as of (i) January 1, 2016, (ii) January 1, 2020, (iii) May 4, 2022? With regard to expenditures on legal costs by the Windsor-Detroit Bridge Authority (WDBA) in relation to the Hydro One Conduit Project, including those concerning any contract related to the project: (a) what is the total amount spent on legal costs; and (b) what are the details of each case or legal action, including the (i) name of the case, (ii) parties involved, (iii) total expenditures to date, (iv) description or summary of legal action, (v) status of the case, (vi) outcome, including the amount awarded or paid out, if applicable? With regard to the government’s evacuation of Afghans during the fall of Kabul in August 2021 and the testimony at the Special Committee on Afghanistan on May 2, 2022, by Global Affairs Canada (GAC) officials that GAC is the lead department for international consular situations and similar evacuation emergencies as established under Canadian law, and that they always do lessons learned exercises in these situations: (a) were these lessons learned exercises interdepartmental with GAC, as well as the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, and the Department of National Defence, and, if not, why not; (b) on what dates were the lessons learned exercises conducted; (c) when were the associated reports (i) produced, (ii) published; and (d) how can the (i) public, (ii) parliamentarians, view the reports?

Mr. Speaker, if the government's response to Questions Nos. 540, 543, 544, 549, 551, 552, 554 to 556, 558 and 560 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately. The Speaker: Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

With regard to all flights taken by the government's fleet of Challenger and Airbus aircraft since the federal carbon tax came into effect on March 1, 2018, including those with and without passengers, broken down by aircraft and year: (a) how many legs has each aircraft flown; (b) what was the total number of kilometers flown; (c) how much fuel was purchased for each aircraft; and (d) what is the actual or estimated amount of carbon tax paid by the government on the fuel purchased for the flights? With regard to the 2 Billion Trees program, since the 2019 Speech from the Throne on December 5, 2019: (a) how much has been spent (i) administering the program, (ii) promoting the program, (iii) planting trees; (b) what is the breakdown of (a)(i) by item and type of expenditure; (c) what is the breakdown by location where trees were actually planted as of May 3, 2022; (d) what are the details of all contracts over $5,000 related to the program, including, for each contract, (i) the date, (ii) the amount, (iii) the description of the goods or services, (iv) the duration of the contract, if applicable, (v) the vendor, (vi) the file number, (vii) whether the contract was sole-sourced or awarded through a competitive bid process? With regard to the government’s commitment to provide up to $100 million more to the provinces and territories through the Safe Return to Class Fund, as well as $10 million to First Nations for on-reserve schools to improve school ventilation, broken down by province and territory, as of November 2021: how much did each province and territory (i) request, (ii) receive, (iii) spend? With regard to wharfs and port facilities owned or administered by Transport Canada: (a) what are the details of each facility, including the (i) location, (ii) available services, (iii) yearly marine traffic levels for each of the last five years, (iv) condition of the facilities, (v) repairs or upgrades required in the next five years to maintain functionality, (vi) federal funding commitment to the facility for each of the next five years for (A) operations, (B) repairs or upgrades; and (b) for each facility, has Transport Canada entered into an agreement as of May 4, 2022, to transfer the administration or ownership of the facility, and, if so, what are the details of the agreement, including the (i) date the agreement was signed, (ii) entity the administration or ownership is being transferred to, (iii) summary of the terms of the agreement, (iv) amount being paid to Transport Canada by the recipient, (v) location? With regard to the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), Public Safety Canada and current delays faced by travelers at the Canadian border: (a) what are the CBSA's current standards for border screening wait times; (b) what is the CBSA's target date to ensure all screenings are completed within normal or minimal wait times; (c) how many CBSA officers were working at points of entry as of (i) January 1, 2016, (ii) January 1, 2020, (iii) May 4, 2022; (d) how many employees at Public Safety Canada working at the CBSA are (i) working from home, (ii) on unpaid leave due to their vaccine status, as of May 4, 2022; and (e) what is the breakdown of each part of (c) by (i) type of point of entry (land crossing, airport, postal facility, etc.), (ii) specific point of entry? With regard to the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority (CATSA) and current delays faced by travelers at Canadian airports: (a) what are the CATSA's current standards for security screening wait times; (b) what is CATSA's plan to reduce the long lines seen at airport security screenings before the summer travel season; (c) does CATSA have any specific targets for reducing passenger wait times, and, if so, what are the targets and by what date will each target be met; (d) how many employees are employed at CATSA performing airport security screenings as of (i) January 1, 2016, (ii) January 1, 2020, (iii) May 4, 2022; (e) how many employees at CATSA are (i) working from home, (ii) on unpaid leave due to their vaccine status, as of May 4, 2022; and (f) what is the breakdown of each part of (d) by airport? With regard to the First-Time Home Buyer Incentive (FTHBI), announced by the government in 2019 and from September 30, 2019, to date: (a) how many applicants have applied for a mortgage through the FTHBI, broken down by (i) year, (ii) province or territory; (b) of the applicants in (a), how many applicants have been approved and accepted mortgages through the FTHBI, broken down by province or territory; (c) what is the total value of incentives (shared equity mortgages) under the program that have been issued, in dollars, broken down by year from 2019 to date; (d) for those applicants who have been issued mortgages through the FTHBI, what is the mean value of the mortgage loan; (e) what is the total aggregate amount of money lent to homebuyers through the FTHBI to date; (f) how many applicants have applied for a mortgage through the FTHBI, broken down by year in the federal electoral district of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound; (g) how many applicants in the federal electoral district of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound who have applied for a mortgage through the FTHBI have been approved, broken down by year; and (h) what is the total aggregate amount of money lent to homebuyers in the federal electoral district of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound through the FTHBI to date? With regard to the 35% tariff imposed on farm fertilizer sourced and purchased from the Russian Federation prior to March 2, 2022: (a) to date, how many orders of product has this new tariff applied to; (b) how many individual farms have been impacted by the 35% fertilizer tariff, broken down by province; (c) did the government consult with farmers when developing sanctions on agricultural products sourced from the Russian Federation; (d) can non-Russian flagged ships carrying Russian sourced fertilizer dock at Canadian ports to unload; and (e) is the government considering exempting fertilizer from sanctions given global food security concerns as a result of the ongoing war in Ukraine? With regard to the Commemorative Partnership Program, broken down between the two project programs (the Community Engagement and the Community War Memorial Program): (a) what specific amounts have been budgeted or allocated to operate the program, broken down by fiscal year dating back to January 1, 2016; (b) what is actual amount spent on the program; (c) how many applications were (i) made, (ii) approved, (iii) declined, broken down by year; (d) what was the average amount spent per approved project, broken down by year; and (e) what is the breakdown of projects by province and by year since 2016? With regard to housing on Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) bases: (a) what are the current numbers on the waiting list for military housing, broken down by CAF base; (b) for each base in (a), what is the breakdown of the waiting list by (i) priority 1, (ii) priority 2 (iii) priority 3; and (c) since January 1, 2016, what is the total number of new military housing units built on CAF bases, broken down by (i) year, (ii) base, (iii) type of housing? With regard to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police's (RCMP) efforts to crack down on fraud and information contained by the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre: (a) how many individuals did the (i) RCMP, (ii) other law enforcement agencies, charge with fraud in each of the last five years; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by the amount of fraud (under $25,000, over $100,000, etc.); and (c) does the RCMP exempt any Canadians from being charged under Canada's anti-fraud laws, and, if so, is the Prime Minister included in those who are exempt?

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand. The Speaker: Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I am rising pursuant to Standing Order 48 to bring to your attention what I believe to be a breach of my privilege. Standing Order 48(2) requires written notice to be given to the Speaker to outline a member's intention to raise a question of privilege. An electronic letter was provided to the Speaker's office at the earliest opportunity, that being at 3:03 this afternoon. Canadians are united in their support of Ukraine and want to know that the government is doing everything that it can to ensure that Ukraine has the support that it needs and to stop the Russians' illegal war and the genocide that is being perpetrated in Ukraine. Canadians want to know if the measures that the government has announced regarding sanctions are having the delivered or desired effect, or in fact any effect at all, on stifling the Russian economy and preventing any Canadian contributions, even in the most inadvertent and incidental way, to the unlawful war in Ukraine. Our allies who have enacted sanctions have been and are transparent. There are some countries that will officially announce when a yacht or a luxury apartment has been seized, as well as the monetary value of that item or asset. Other European allies have already publicized similar asset seizures, with over $2 billion seized by EU countries between late February and early April this year. I have repeatedly asked the government, both verbally during question period and in writing Order Paper questions to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and her parliamentary secretary, about the number of sanctions imposed and the value of the assets or property seized from the listed Russian oligarchs and their named relatives, and whether these measures have resulted in the halting of assets that could be used to purchase material or resources to harm Ukraine and Ukrainians. Canadians, of course, would very much like to know if the measures that the government is enacting and undertaking are actually working. While I understand that Speaker's rulings have stated that the Speaker is not responsible for the quality of the answer, the Speaker does have an obligation to ensure that question period meets the standards set out by Bosc and Gagnon. For example, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Bosc and Gagnon, outlines a number of principles by which question period is governed. For example, it reads: While there may be other purposes and ambitions involved in Question Period, its primary purpose must be the seeking of information from the government and calling the government to account for its actions. If the primary purpose of question period is to seek information and call the government to account, how is it possible that the government provides incomplete or misleading answers? Further, while Speakers have traditionally been reluctant to adjudicate on the quality of answers, it is nonetheless well within the Speaker's responsibility to ensure that the rules are followed and that the answers are provided. In this context, I will draw your attention to my specific case, namely the response, which indicates that the government would not answer, simply because it did not immediately have that information. Mr. Speaker, this is not an example of an insufficient answer. It is an example of the government's abdication of its responsibility to provide an answer at all. In that context, I think it is appropriate for you to review this matter. Thus far, the Canadian government refuses to share even these basic, yet vital, details. Without this information, it feels very much like the government is hiding something. This raises concerns for me that perhaps the government has yet to take any meaningful, concrete actions, that it is just naming the names and not carrying out the enforcement. The answers that have thus far been proffered to me in response to my numerous questions have been vague, incomplete or completely without any information at all. For example, the government responded to one of my Order Paper questions by writing that because it is unable or cannot provide complete information, it will provide none. I would argue that this response constitutes improper use by the government of the process of written questions, and it infringes on the member of Parliament's rights to hold accountable the ministry. In chapter 7 of her November 20, 2004 report entitled “Process for Responding to Parliamentary Order Paper Questions”, the then auditor general wrote this: The right to seek information from the Ministry of the day and the right to hold that Ministry accountable are recognized as two of the fundamental principles of parliamentary government. Written questions are one of the tools that Canadians, via their elected representatives, can use to force the government to be accountable. I hope you will consider this matter seriously and recognize that it involves a prima facie breach of my privileges as a member of Parliament. None of the information that I have requested has been found in the government's responses.

I would like to thank the hon. member for having raised this matter. It is true that the right to seek information and to hold government to account are at the basis of our parliamentary system. The member seems unsatisfied with the type of information and level of details obtained in response to questions raised in the House and through written questions placed on the Order Paper. I will quote the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, pages 529 and 530: There are no provisions in the rules for the Speaker to review government responses to questions. Nonetheless, on several occasions, Members have raised questions of privilege in the House regarding the accuracy of information contained in responses to written questions; in none of these cases was the matter found to be a prima facie breach of privilege. The Speaker has ruled that it is not the role of the Chair to determine whether or not the contents of documents tabled in the House are accurate nor to “assess the likelihood of an Hon. Member knowing whether the facts contained in a document are correct”. This question is not a new one and the Speaker has indicated in the past that it is acceptable for the government, in response to written questions, to indicate that it cannot supply an answer. As such, in the Chair's opinion, this does not constitute a prima facie case of privilege, nor does it constitute a valid point of order. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, Climate Change; the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Agriculture and Agri-Food; the hon. member for Victoria, Climate Change.

Pursuant to an order made on May 2, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Bill C-11 at the third reading stage.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to lead our consideration of third reading of Bill C-11, the online streaming act. This is not our first time dealing with this type of legislation. Bill C-11 is largely the same as the previous bill, which was adopted by the House on June 2021. The main difference between the two are changes in the approach to social media and the correction of drafting errors. Our government reintroduced reforms to the Broadcasting Act in February of this year. Our goal with this legislation is to modernize the act so that it continues to serve Canadians in an increasingly digital age. Bill C-11 also delivers on our government's promise to update the act in support of Canadian content. We Canadians are known for our rich and diverse culture. This is no accident. Rather, it is a consequence of bold action taken in the past. Our culture is the result of deliberate decisions Canadians have taken to support it, not the least of which is the Broadcasting Act, a crucial piece of cultural legislation. The Broadcasting Act is not new. It was last amended in 1991, when I was still at Mary Ward elementary school in Niagara Falls. The years since have seen a rapid innovation in all sectors regulated by the act. The Internet has gone from a rarity to something that we hold in the palm of our hands. TV Guides have been thrown out in favour of on-demand streaming. Music has become ubiquitous, thanks to robust digital libraries. Films are now more available and instantly accessible, more than ever before. It is like having a Blockbuster store right in our own home. If we are talking about 1991 references, that is a good one to make. In short, how we produce, access and think about content has changed dramatically. Our updates to the Broadcasting Act will continue to serve Canadians now and in the future as well as it has in the past. I would like to highlight four main ways the online streaming act will serve Canadians. First, Bill C-11 will ensure greater representation in our entertainment media for minority communities in Canada. Diversity is a cornerstone of Canadian identity but it is not a given. Representation matters. We must make sure that all Canadians can see themselves reflected in the stories they engage with. Bill C-11 makes it possible for minority communities to be better seen and heard in our digital media. Some of these communities include francophones, indigenous peoples, minority language communities, LGBTQ+ persons and persons with disabilities. Canadian programming is telling those stories. It is up to us to make sure those voices are heard loud and clear, and that even more diverse voices can join them. Kim's Convenience, a show produced by CBC, follows a Korean family who runs a small business in Toronto, a distinctly Canadian experience. Schitt's Creek, another Canadian television program, leads with LGBTQ2S+ characters. It is stories such as these that make us proud to be Canadian. They make us feel at home and they also make us feel seen and heard. We must not underestimate the power of seeing these kinds of stories on our screens. We must take action to make a welcoming space online for a diverse chorus of voices. This action includes taking steps regarding allocation of resources, which brings me to my second point. The audiovisual interactive media sectors contributed over $19 billion to Canada's GDP in 2020. It is an important segment of the Canadian economy, yet industry trends are worrisome. Current market trends anticipate a decrease in the production of Canadian television content by approximately half a billion dollars by 2025, compared to 2020. That is a 13% decrease and 13% fewer Canadian voices to be heard. The year 2020 was not an optimal year either. That year, Canadian television production declined by $320 million compared to 2018. These numbers are not figments of our imagination. They are facts. The industry is telling us that it needs our support and we should listen. Bill C-11 proposes interventions that can change the trajectory of these projections. If passed, the Department of Canadian Heritage projects that Canada's cultural production ecosystem could benefit by more than $1 billion annually in mandated contributions. Greater financing means that additional funding would be available to Canadian productions, which would lead to more diversity in our broadcasting. The risk is not purely economic. We are also risking the livelihood of tens of thousands of Canadians. Film, television and broadcasting production sectors represent 165,000 jobs. We need to protect the stability of those employment opportunities, especially as we come out of a pandemic. The pandemic limited the revenue steams of Canadian artists and creators. Many had to reinvent how they share their gifts with the world. We all benefited from their resilience. We found solace in their music, we travelled through film and we experienced community through television. Creators are there when we need them, and Bill C-11 is our way to give back to them. Creators told us they did not want to be subject to regulations in the online streaming act, and we listened. Their work will not be considered commercial, regardless of how much money they make. Our legislation would ensure that productions of digital-first creators do not face additional hurdles. Traditional broadcasters have long been subjected to certain requirements that bolster Canadian creators. We must ensure that new broadcasters, such as streaming platforms, offer our sectors the same backing. Bill C-11 would make that a reality. My fourth point is to do with the support of artistic innovation. We wrote Bill C-11 to advance artistic innovation, not to hinder it. One of the ways we would be advancing innovation would be by changing our primary regulatory tool. As it stands, broadcasters must obtain broadcasting licences from the CRTC before they can operate in Canada. This is the bread and butter of current regulations. In this legislation, we have adopted a new approach: the condition-of-service model. Under our new model, broadcasters, both traditional and digital, could operate in Canada as long as they respect the conditions laid out by the CRTC. The new conditions of service could be updated at any time. Previously, updates would only be made during the licensing renewal process, or every five to seven years. Our proposed model would give the CRTC the ability to seek contributions from broadcasters in support of Canadian storytellers, be they musicians, TV producers or filmmakers. All of these updates would ensure that regulations can evolve alongside the industry, rather than chasing to keep up. I would like to change gears for a moment. I have laid out the four key things the online streaming act would do to improve cultural development and equity in Canada, but let us take some time to look at what the act would not do. I will start with the most fundamental point. Bill C-11 would not regulate the Internet. I will say it again, because we hear it from the other side: Bill C-11 would not regulate the Internet. Traditional broadcasters have been regulated by the Broadcasting Act for decades. Television personalities were never regulated by the Broadcasting Act. This principle would not change under Bill C-11. The legislation would update our definition of “broadcasters” to include the platforms many of us get our content from. The online steaming act would regulate foreign streaming companies, such as Netflix and Spotify, and domestic ones, such as Crave. Social media platforms that function as broadcasters, such as YouTube, could also fall under these regulations, but only the social media service itself would have responsibilities under Bill C-11. Content creators would not be subject to regulations. Platforms are in, and users are out. Bill C-11 would not control what Canadians view online. On the contrary, it would pave the way for folks to view more Canadian content. With Bill C-11 we would be making it possible for Canadians to create more stories that resonate with their fellow Canadians. This fact goes back to my earlier point about the need for equal representation on our screens and in our earphones. We want to ensure that Canadians in the cultural industry face no closed doors when they tell their stories. The online streaming act would not limit the choices of Canadians, and this bill would create more choices for consumption, not less. I want to assure every Canadian that, if this bill becomes law, their ability to choose what they watch and what they listen to would not change. We will always protect Canadians' freedom of expression. The legislation would not overturn the Broadcasting Act. It would modernize the Broadcasting Act so that the good of that legislation continues to be experienced by future generations of Canadians for years to come. History has shown us the importance of supporting broadcasting through legislation. Thanks to the Broadcasting Act and the work of parliamentarians who passed and amended it, we grew up consuming and loving Canadian content. This content has played a role in establishing our collective identity. Our country is vast. Geographic separation can isolate us from province to province, territory to territory and region to region. Our shared experience of viewing and listening transcends the distance. It is one of the things that unites us. The actions and achievements of past parliamentarians made it possible to hear languages we did not speak, to see coasts of our country we had not seen and to listen to music unlike what we heard in our homes. Our job is hold open even richer cultural experiences for coming generations of Canadians. Part of my identity as a Canadian is thanks to people who saw value in giving me those experiences. I would like to return the favour for future generations. The COVID pandemic was a challenge for many of us. We watched local businesses struggle, community theatres close and film productions cease. Despite all of this disruption and chaos, many large streaming platforms had pandemic gains. Netflix is one example. The company gained 16 million new subscribers at the beginning of the pandemic. Fairness is paramount, and streaming services should hold no preference. As they solidify their place in our media landscape, they must be subject to wise and fair regulations. Bill C-11 could require online streaming platforms to contribute to the production of Canadian audio or audiovisual content. This bill could also require them to financially support the training of Canadian creators. This kind of financial support makes a big difference in the lives of many people. Bill C-11 is before us today, thanks to the dedication of Canadians, public servants, industry professionals and parliamentarians. The Broadcasting Act guided the creation of great Canadian content for many years. We are grateful for the experiences it enabled us to share in the current era it helped us usher in, but we cannot let past decisions determine what tomorrow looks like. It is time for Canada to take greater control in today's digital era to fight for greater representation; to strengthen cultural growth and cultural sectors; to safeguard jobs and music, film and television production; and to evolve with the times and not fall behind them. I am proud to stand behind legislation that will help Canada do that. I would like to commend the Minister of Canadian Heritage for his passionate defence of this legislation. His leadership has been critical in getting the bill to this point. I would also like to thank the Minister of Environment for the work he did on this legislation when he was the minister of Canadian heritage. Now it is our turn to act. In passing this legislation, we will bring about a new era of Canadian content creation. We will ensure a promising future for our artists, our creators and our storytellers. We will shape what future generations think of when they picture what it means to be Canadian. Let us give them a future they can see themselves in. With that, I invite my hon. colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, there are two comments that stood out in that speech. At one point, the member referenced that the bill would not control what people would say, but would only open the door for more Canadian content. In other words, that is the government, through this bill, controlling what people would see on the Internet, even if it is more Canadian content. The member might agree that seeing more Canadian content online is good, but again that is the algorithms taking away choice and determining what Canadians will actually see and be pointed to in their viewing activities on the Internet. Second, I believe that during the committee hearings, Mr. Scott, the head of the CRTC, stated in reference to section 4.2 that this bill “allows the CRTC to prescribe by regulation user-uploaded content subject to very explicit criteria.” How does the member square what the CRTC is already saying about this bill with his words today here in the House?

Mr. Speaker, as for controlling what Canadians watch, the Broadcasting Act regulates television. I do not make the member watch Roughriders games, nor does the government or the CRTC make him do that. If he wants to watch the BC Lions, he is free to do that. If he wants to watch American football, he is free to do that. With respect to algorithms, the law specifically prohibits the CRTC from regulating algorithms. With respect to what Mr. Scott said, what the member and Conservatives have left out is that Mr. Scott said the current legislation, as drafted, already allows the CRTC to regulate online platforms, but that Bill C-11 builds a wall around it. Platforms will have obligations; users will not. That is how it has been for the last 50 years under the CRTC for traditional broadcasters. It will continue to be the same for online streamers.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his speech. I am going to give him a break from questions about censorship and the CRTC's control over the Internet, if Bill C-11—

I must interrupt the member. It seems there was a problem with the interpretation, but it is working now. The hon. member for Drummond can restart his question.

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, I will give my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, a break. I will not talk about censorship. I will not talk about the enormous power that the CRTC will have over what Canadians and Quebeckers can and cannot watch online either. I think that we agree that the bill we are discussing contains no such horrors. However, in the short time we had to discuss the amendments, there was something that troubled me, and that was the issue of the degree to which foreign companies will be required to use homegrown talent and creators. We tried to submit a minor amendment that would have forced online companies to maximize their use of homegrown talent, creators and artists, but it was rejected. I would like to hear the reasoning behind this refusal to also make foreign companies maximize their use of Canadian and Quebec resources.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question and his collaboration during the debate and throughout committee work. I know the Bloc, the Liberals and the NDP work very well together to ensure that we do hear diverse voices and that we do act to protect the French language, both within Quebec and outside of Quebec. That is what we are building on. In the Broadcasting Act, we are building on the others who have come before us in order to ensure that the voices and how Canada looks, how Canada sounds and how Canada communicates are reflected back at us. I know we can quibble about amendments and I know the member was very passionate about that amendment, but I know we both stand behind the principle of this legislation, which is to ensure that strong voices in Canada, including strong francophone voices, are heard in our digital landscape as they have been heard under the Broadcasting Act with traditional broadcasters.

Mr. Speaker, modernizing the Broadcasting Act is important, and levelling the field between Canadian broadcasters and web giants is essential. Even with these needed changes, Netflix, YouTube, Facebook and other web giants still do not pay their fair share on the profits they make here in Canada. Why is the government delaying the implementation of a digital services tax? Why are they protecting the profits of the web giants and refusing to make them pay their fair share?

Mr. Speaker, I think we have to be careful, because there are web giants—and I know Netflix was mentioned in that group—that contribute heavily to Canadian production, employ many Canadians and provide many good union jobs as well. We should be careful when we are lumping everyone in to one particular group. I agree that this legislation is about ensuring a level playing field. Our traditional broadcasters, although people will say what they will about the Bells and Rogers of the world, are Canadian companies. Large foreign companies should have to play by a similar set of rules. I do not know why the Conservatives are taking the side of huge foreign companies like Google or a Chinese company like TikTok over Canadian companies in Canada. It has been disappointing this entire time.

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated the member's speech. It gives Canadians a very good understanding of what the bill does and what it does not do. As a member of Parliament, my job is to be out there on the ground speaking with constituents and finding out how they feel. I am sure my colleague, in his constituency and in travelling as part of his job as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, is also travelling across the country and having those discussions. What are the creators and artists on the ground saying this will do for them? Are they happy with this or not?

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to speak to creators large and small across the country. We had Gord Sinclair of The Tragically Hip before our committee. The member for Kingston and the Islands will not like me phrasing it this way, but a band from a small town in eastern Ontario that grew to be a huge success across the country benefited from previous legislation. He came to our committee to say he wants to see the next Tragically Hip and that Bill C-11 will do that. We have been hearing that from artists across the board who have had significant success, and some who have not. The artistic community has been united in their support, from what I have heard on Bill C-11, and it is something I ask all members of this House to pass so that we can get that help to our artists.