44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 30, 2022 11:00AM
Madam Speaker, my colleague's question highlights what the Conservatives have been doing for weeks and months in trying to jam the work of Parliament in the chamber and in committees. Who benefits from that? No one does. The Conservatives think that they benefit from it, but Canadians do not benefit from what they are doing now.
Now we are talking about Bill C-18, which is fundamental for a strong, free, independent press. I said before that 450 media outlets have closed their doors in the last 15 years, and 64 or 65 have closed in the last two years. This makes our democracy weaker, not stronger.
We have to reinforce it. We have to be able to answer the tough questions, and I want to thank NDP members who are taking this extremely seriously in committees, in their ridings and in meeting with the media. They are bringing back good feedback. They want to collaborate, which is the difference between them and the Conservatives. The NDP wants to collaborate, but they do not.
175 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, again, it is troubling the way that this Liberal-NDP government is contributing to the decline of democracy here. There are signs that this government simply does not want to hear from Canadians, and does not want to hear from the opposition parties, so it is shutting down debate again. It is shameful that the NDP is siding with it on these time allocation motions.
The heritage committee is already backed up with the legislation it is dealing with already. We have only had one speaker from the Conservative Party on the opposition side on this important debate. This is a debate that is important to all Canadians so that all Canadian voices can be heard.
Is this stifling of debate necessary because the Liberal government does not want to work? The Liberals have set an example. In 2019, the House only sat for 75 days. In 2020, we only sat for 86 days. In 2021, we only sat for 95 days. Prior to that, the House sat for an average of 122 days.
We know that this Liberal government does not like to be in the House and be held accountable. Why are they pushing to further shut down debate from the opposition parties on this motion?
210 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have been in this House for a few years now. I have sat on that side for many years, and I know how important the work of the opposition is. However, at that time, as with other members, we respected the House and Canadians.
I think that there is a way to work together respectfully, and I want to commend my official opposition critic who does exactly that. We may disagree on a lot of things, but he is very respectful. He respects the work of committees and the House, and he respects the bill too. I would love the Conservatives to be a little more respectful of the whole process, and we have seen what they have done on Bill C-11 and others.
Now it is time to work for democracy, not against it. A strong, free and independent press reinforces democracy, and that is exactly what Bill C-18 is all about.
158 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, at times in the past, I have supported time allocation when there has been reasonable debate on a particular bill. For government to function, it is important for respectful debate to take place. I agree with the minister about the importance of Bill C-18. In fact, I was looking forward to hearing various perspectives in this place on the legislation.
In this case, as others have shared, we have had a total of two hours of debate on a Friday afternoon before moving to time allocation. Can the minister share why he feels this is so necessary, and why this is the only option available to the governing party to move ahead with respectful debate in this place?
121 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, debate happens here in this beautiful House, it happens in committees and it happens in the Senate. Those debates will take place.
We all know how important committee work is. This is where the thorough questions are asked and where we hear from witnesses. I go to committee and appear with great pleasure. A big chunk of the work is done there. What the Conservatives have been doing is trying to jam this place. It is very sad for someone who ran to come here to see what is being done. I am sad when I look at them and even more when I listen to them.
I know they do not like me to be sad, so I ask them to maybe change a little how they do things. Maybe they can participate a bit more in the debates or maybe be bit more constructive and make suggestions instead of trying to jam everything in the House.
Bill C-18 is about democracy and journalism, and Conservatives should support it.
173 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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.
141 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, of course there will be very important work done at committee. It would be a pleasure, if my colleague and the members invite me, to go because I have many important things to say on the bill. For example, it is really an arm's length bill. It is a bill that sets a table for the web giants, tech giants and news media across the country, big or small, to sit down and work on fair agreements for all. That is extremely important.
That is one of the things we can discuss at committee. Another thing we could discuss at committee is how this bill would allow collective agreements, which would include a lot of small and regional papers. If I go to committee and the member asks me that question, I will talk about collective agreements. Of course there will be lots of time to work at committee, and it will be a pleasure to see my friend there.
163 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will rephrase my question. I was giving a passionate speech, and I did not know whether I had 60 seconds to ask my question.
We obviously want to have a solution.
The solution is what is proposed in Bill C‑18, which incorporates certain aspects of bills C‑10 and C‑11. The groundwork has been laid, and this should be acknowledged.
My questions are as follows: What is going on? What can we tell our constituents?
As it stands, we have had only two hours of discussion and debate on such an important bill. I expect to hear an answer from my colleague across the aisle, because this is not the first time this has happened, and my hunch is that it will not be the last. I would like an explanation.
140 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will not comment on my colleague's hunches, but I will say this: I am somewhat surprised that the Bloc Québécois, which is generally the exact opposite of the Conservatives when it comes to ideas, principles and ideals, is so openly supportive of the Conservatives in this type of discussion.
As I understand it, the Bloc Québécois members support Bill C‑18. Why do they support it? They support the bill because it strengthens our media, because it strengthens a free and independent press, a press that will ensure that we have news about what is happening in Chibougamau, Trois-Rivières, Sherbrooke, Gatineau, Amos and Brossard.
The purpose of this bill is to ensure that there will continue to be a press. From what I understand, the NDP supports it as well. As for the Conservatives, who included it in their platform, I hope that they will agree with themselves. If all goes well and they listen to themselves, they should support the bill. Then it will be unanimous.
184 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, when the Conservatives were in government, a majority government at that, they used time allocation over 100 times. Here we are now, and we are seeing the Conservatives using obstructionist tactics over and over again.
Could the member share why this bill is important? Could he also share why it is important that we make a decision that Canadians need to be made and why these obstructionist tactics are in the way of Canadians being served?
78 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my colleague's comment and questions highlight how important it is to be able to collaborate.
Even if we disagree, we come here for the same reasons. We want to represent the people who voted for us, and we want our country to improve. We want a better society for our children. We may disagree on how to get there. Once or twice, we may disagree on how to get there, but we are here for the right reasons, which is to make a better country.
This will make Canada a better country because we will have a stronger free and independent press, and that press is disappearing. I mentioned 450 media outlet that have closed during the last 15 years, and that is huge. We are not only talking about small ones. There are small and big ones in different regions.
If they all disappear, who will be there to talk about what my colleague is doing in their riding, what I am doing or what anyone else is doing? About 80% of advertising on the web is going to two web giants: Facebook and Google. That is the reality. That is what is happening at this moment. We need to have the tech giants and the media outlets sit down and negotiate fair deals. It would be fair for all.
224 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, in the answers to the questions so far, the minister has talked about the loss of thriving news agencies. He has talked about the 450 news agencies that have been lost in the last couple years and how it is so important for us to have these thriving news agencies to support our democracy.
He just talked about the differences we might have in the House as we come to debate bills. We come to represent our constituents and to have a discussion in this House, but he does that in the context of limiting the opportunity for us, as members of Parliament, to come and have discussion and debate a particular bill. He talks about how substantive this bill is.
How does limiting our discussion and debate by invoking closure on this bill allow for members of the House to come and represent their constituents in an adequate manner?
152 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, some numbers came out this morning about the importance of supporting a free and independent press, and they are quite interesting.
If members do not want to listen to me, then maybe they can at least listen to their own voters, the people who voted for them, and 71% of self-identified Conservative voters think web giants should have to share revenue with Canadian media outlets. That is 71% of Conservatives. I have a second number, and it is that 74% of self-identified Conservative voters think that Parliament should pass a law that would let smaller outlets negotiate collectively with web giants. This is exactly what we are doing with this bill.
115 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, this bill is important. It is important to ensure that web giants such as Facebook, Meta and Google pay their fair share. When I think about the Canadians watching the debate and the constituents of our Conservative colleagues watching this party obstruct not only this bill but so many more before it, I imagine they are disappointed.
I'm wondering if the minister can speak to those Canadians and talk a bit about the importance of the work we do here and how it is incredibly disappointing to see what the Conservatives have been doing.
97 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, that is a very important comment from my colleague. I want to thank her for everything she is doing, and her party for what it is doing, on this very important bill.
With respect to Canadians being disappointed, of course they are disappointed with the Conservatives. I am very disappointed myself with them, which says a lot. However, it is not only Canadians. I referred to the numbers: 71% of Conservative voters said that we should do this and 74% said we should allow small media outlets to negotiate with the big web giants. This is written in the bill, so if the Conservatives do not want to listen to me or to us, will they at least listen to the people who might vote for them in the future?
132 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, since we are making up numbers, I have a poll here stating that 100% of Liberal voters did not vote for an NDP-Liberal coalition, but that is where we are at. With how quickly and how far the New Democrats have fallen in holding the government to account as a fourth party, they sound like lapdogs to the Liberal Party.
This is important because the government representative, the minister, is talking about obstruction that has been going on, but we have had two hours of debate on this bill. The official opposition, Her Majesty's loyal opposition, has had one member speak to this bill, which has been universally panned. There is no question that there is a need to fix this issue, but when we actively engage in vigorous debate in this place, ideas are formed. That is how better bills are passed. To see the heritage minister use obstruction as a reason for ramming this bill through the House is rather disingenuous.
The minister's legacy will be a decline in democracy as it relates to this institution. We wonder why people are losing faith in our institutions, and this the exact reason: Voices are being silenced in this place, those of millions of people who voted for opposition parties, including the Conservatives. It is a legacy he will have to live with.
A free and open democracy requires an independent news media. We agree with that, but this is not the way to get this done.
253 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, if my colleague agrees with that, he has a weird way of showing it. I see the Conservatives attacking the New Democrats because they come here trying to make a difference. On some things we collaborate; on others we do not and we disagree, which is fine. However, to the Conservatives the word “collaboration” makes no sense. What they prefer to do is jam things, filibuster, listen to each other and clap for each other all the time. They think it is a good thing to shut down democracy like they are doing now. It is totally wrong.
We have to move forward. This bill has to move forward. This bill will go to committee and will have hours of discussion and witnesses. I will go there and speak about the importance of it and how it allows collective bargaining to help smaller media news outlets and regional news outlets. I will talk about how this will translate into fair agreements between the tech giants and media outlets across the country. I will talk about the importance of the press. I will talk about the importance of the press for our democracy and the importance of a strong, free and independent press, because that is what bill C-18 is all about. That is it.
219 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, to the hon. minister, this moment we have now is not about debating the substance of Bill C-18. I look forward to an opportunity to debate that, but I will not get that opportunity because time allocation is being used again.
I have to say that, on principle, I object to this. I objected to it when the previous administration under Stephen Harper did it over and over again at a level unprecedented in parliamentary history. What is now happening is the governing Liberals are normalizing the suppression of debate at second reading. Maybe we can debate this in the Standing Orders debate we are to have. Is the goal of governing parties in this place to shut down all debate at second reading and just say, “We will get to it in committee”? That is not acceptable.
This is not acceptable and I will not be voting for time allocation. On principle, I have maybe once been persuaded that there really was a case for it, but today on Bill C-18 there is no case for it.
184 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is important that we move on with such a crucial bill for our democracy. I think it is a well-balanced bill. We took the original idea from Australia and we tweaked it and improved it. It is more transparent. It is arm's length legislation, and we have set the table for the tech giants to sit down with media outlets big and small so they can negotiate to come to different agreements. There is minimal intervention from the government.
The Conservatives should be happy about it, but they do not seem to be happy. I do not understand why. They even wrote in their own platform that they would do exactly what we are doing. Maybe they changed their minds again on this, but I think we are doing the right thing.
137 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, when I was in opposition in the third party, I indicated that there is a time when governments need to use time allocation as a tool to pass legislation. We have before us today, and have witnessed for a number of months now, an official opposition that has absolutely no intention to allow legislation to pass. It does not take very much for an opposition party to prevent legislation from passing. As I said when I was in opposition, at times the government has to use time allocation as a tool.
Would my colleague not agree that, given the strategy of the Conservative Party not to pass legislation and to even filibuster legislation that it supports, the only way we can pass this legislation is if we use time allocation, something the Conservative Party used to vote for extensively?
141 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
