44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 20, 2023 10:00AM
- Jun/20/23 1:43:43 p.m.
- Watch
I am sure the hon. member will get there in the time he has remaining.
The hon. parliamentary secretary.
19 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I always appreciate input from the leader of the Green Party. I am not sure if she was here for the beginning of my comments. The bottom line is that it is important for Canadians to realize the degree to which the government is working with some opposition parties in this House in order to pass important legislation.
I indicated at the beginning of my remarks just how important our community media outlets are. With this legislation, we have the opportunity to ensure that Facebook, Google and the big giant tech companies are paying for what they are receiving and utilizing through media news outlets. We are attempting to ensure that we have healthier community news and a healthier democracy, as a direct result.
I indicated earlier that I would talk about CBC. We have a government that is committed to supporting CBC and I would love, during questions and comments, to hear some Conservative members make the commitment to support CBC Radio and CBC Television. I will not hold my breath on that point, but it sure would be nice for them to support that, if not Bill C-18.
193 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I worked for community newspapers for more than 20 years. I believe the member is misleading Canadians when he said that this is somehow going to be a salvation for community news, as the vast majority of papers will not see a dime of this money because 70% goes to Rogers, Bell and large tech companies. The small community papers in our rural ridings with one journalist do not even qualify for this program.
I will tell the member this. The three things that really impacted community journalism and those community papers were the costs of using Canada Post and accessing the Internet; the CBC, which undercuts the advertising ability of small and medium outlets because they cannot compete with a subsidized giant like it; and the government withdrawing all of its advertising dollars from those small community papers that relied on those advertisements.
If the member thinks community journalism and community papers are so important and the heartbeat of our communities, how much money is the government spending on community papers through federal advertising dollars?
178 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the federal government continues to support our community and news outlets in many different ways.
I guess that can be reversed. The member said he is concerned about the community news media outlets, yet even though Conservatives made an election platform promise, they reneged on that commitment.
At the end of the day, we have not only shown budgetary measures to support media outlets, but we have now also provided legislative outlets.
As the NDP House leader has very clearly indicated, whether with respect to the Saskatchewan or Alberta community newspapers, the New Democrats support this legislation.
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Winnipeg North for his speech. He talked a lot about the Conservative Party's position, but also about time allocation. I would like to talk about the Bloc Québécois's position.
A royalty fund financed with the revenues from Facebook and Google is being planned. Will local weekly newspapers be able to access this royalty fund? Maybe not. That is why the Bloc Québécois is proposing that a royalty fund be created for local weeklies.
A local weekly is extremely important for the life of the municipality. It reports on what is happening with the municipal council, in local businesses and in the local area. We are talking about everyday life in the municipality.
I wonder if my colleague could comment on the Bloc Québécois proposal to create a special royalty fund for local weeklies and small municipalities.
157 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we went through quite an extensive process at the committee stage. I suspect the member will find that many of the concerns the Bloc had raised have already been addressed by the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
I recognize that the members of the Bloc support the legislation, but I question to what degree they support the speedy passage of the bill. We want to see it pass before the summer break.
73 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I note that in his speech today the parliamentary secretary specifically talked about Conservatives now compared to those from back in the day and former Conservatives. He and I have spoken a lot about this in the House. However, what has been reported today are some comments from a former Conservative prime minister.
The CBC reported the following:
Former prime minister Brian Mulroney mounted a defence of one of his successors Monday, saying...the current Prime Minister has delivered on the “big ticket items” and history won't look kindly on Parliament Hill denizens who push “trash...rumours” and “gossip.”
I wonder if the parliamentary secretary has any insight into who he thinks the former prime minister is talking about when he makes reference to those who are spreading trash rumours, given that he is speaking so glowingly about the Prime Minister and the work this government has done.
157 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I think it is important to recognize that Brian Mulroney was a Progressive Conservative, as opposed to the current leader, who is kind of a Conservative-Reform-far-right leader. I would, first, start by saying that I do not think they are the same political entity.
In regard to his comments, we have, as a government, carried out some wonderful things with the support of Canadians, whether it is securing health care funding for future generations, $200 billion to the establishment of the first-ever national housing program or the first-ever child care support program. These are national programs, not to mention the supports we have put in place for seniors going into the pandemic.
No government in the history of this country has signed off on as many trade agreements throughout the world, ultimately supporting Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it.
We want a government and an economy that is going to be there for all Canadians. That is what we have been striving for, while the Conservatives seem to be more focused on raising money than doing what is politically correct. That is why they are in opposition to this particular piece of legislation.
207 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member lamented that we were opposing and stalling their legislation. There is good reason for that: It is horrible legislation. It seems that what this bill is actually going to accomplish is to really muzzle Canadians from speaking, from sharing links and other news media. This is basically a muzzling of Canadians.
Does the parliamentary secretary not recognize that?
62 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I think the legislation that the member is referring to is Bill C-11; on that bill, the Conservatives said that we were trying to muzzle Canadians, that we were not going to let them upload their cat videos and things of that nature. It is about misinformation.
Of course that was absolute hokum, misinformation. I suspect that the Conservative Party made a lot of money on Bill C-11, in terms of fundraising, by spreading misinformation. I do not know how long that particular piece of legislation was held up for. I think it was a record in terms of how long it was held up in the Senate.
The bottom line is that this is good legislation. All they need to do is read their election platform to see what they told Canadians in the last federal election, recognize the true value of this legislation and support it. It is not too late. One can always flip-flop again and support this legislation.
167 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for his intervention—
13 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/20/23 1:53:43 p.m.
- Watch
I am going to interrupt the hon. member.
Order, please. Could members listen to the question being asked by the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue?
28 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to talk about humility in the present context. I think this bill calls for that much-sought-after quality in our parliamentary debates. Humility is also about recognizing everyone's mistakes. In the present context, I think everyone agrees that the Bloc Québécois has contributed to and helped advance this legislative process.
However, it is nearly June 23 and we are down to the last minute. The government controls the order of business. The bill was sent to the Senate in February. Why has this been left to the last minute like this? Why did we not work on it earlier? If it was so predictable, why was the bill not fast-tracked through the order of business in the Senate so that it could be sent back to the House sooner?
141 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I think one has to look at it from the perspective of how the government has a finite amount of hours in which we can actually have government business come before the House. Opposition members know that. That is one of the greatest tools that an opposition member has. I was in opposition for over 20 years. I understand the tool.
At the end of the day, if one continues to bring up concurrence reports, to move motions that other members be able to speak and to bring up dilatory motions in order to prevent debate from taking place, it is destructive. I agree that it is not the Bloc that is doing it and that it is the Conservative Party; that is why I emphasize and focus attention on the Conservative Party's irresponsible behaviour so much of the time. It is a destructive force here on the floor of the House of Commons. I too enjoy a good debate.
163 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I rise on a serious point of order with respect to the right of the member for Lethbridge to speak during the debate that is currently on in the House.
At the end of the time provided to question the Minister of Canadian Heritage for his use of time allocation on Bill C-18, the online news act, there was a heated exchange between the minister and the member for Lethbridge. It is no secret that the member for Lethbridge is a fierce critic of the minister and has opposed his legislation every step of the way. She makes the point that Bill C-18 is the next step in the government's censorship of the Internet. The member has repeatedly argued that the minister is the one rewarding tech giants, as he will give them more power with Bill C-18. The minister accused the member for Lethbridge of using the talking points of tech giants in opposition to the bill. In response, the member for Lethbridge accused the minister of lying.
We know that term is unparliamentary, and I accept the decision of the Assistant Deputy Speaker to call her to order. It should also be pointed out that, when one member makes a false claim about another member, it is not uncommon for disorder to follow. The member for Lethbridge did the right thing when she said clearly, “I will apologize for using that word.” She went on to say, “He misinformed the House.” This is a matter for debate, although for my part, I agree with her.
The Chair took exception to that comment, informing the House that the member for Lethbridge would not be recognized for the remainder of the day. To be clear, the member did not accuse the minister of deliberately misinforming the House. She simply made the point that the minister was misinformed and brought that misinformation to the House. At most, this is a point of debate. It is not something that a member should be sanctioned for.
The irony is not lost on me that the member is being censored during debate on what amounts to a censorship bill. In my view, this is a heavy-handed response from the Chair, given the poor behaviour of Liberal members in recent days. The Chair has accepted apologies for behaviour that is far more egregious without Liberal members attracting any sanction.
We can take the member for Kingston and the Islands as an example. Last week, he gave me the middle finger when I called him out for denying a unanimous consent motion that called for Paul Bernardo to be put back in maximum security. That member gave the most insincere apology I can recall in the House. There was no sanction for him. In fact, later that day, he was given the floor in the debate.
Therefore, I would expect that the apology from the member for Lethbridge would be accepted by the House and that the Chair would allow her to participate in the debate this afternoon. Further, the House would benefit from even-handed application of the rules that is not seen to benefit one party over another. I would like the Speaker to clarify how the rules should be applied, regardless of who is presiding over the debates.
556 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/20/23 1:58:47 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order.
I was able to witness the whole process, in terms of what had taken place. There was no “heated exchange” between the two members; the minister was giving a response to a question, and he was constantly being heckled.
The Speaker at the time gave not one or two, but several warnings. They were not warnings about unparliamentary language; they were because the member continued to heckle, and she was warned to stop heckling. The unparliamentary language was only one part of it. She was actually told that if she did not stop heckling, then she would not be recognized.
It had nothing to do with the unparliamentary language. In fact, while the Speaker was making that ruling, I focused my attention on the member for Lethbridge, who did not stop talking. Reflecting on what took place, I do not think what the opposition whip has put on the record is fully accurate.
165 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/20/23 2:00:02 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order.
I just wanted to make a point that the New Democratic Party would like to reserve the right to come back to speak to this issue at a later date.
40 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/20/23 2:00:17 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will speak to this now. In fact, when the Speaker thought the member was heckling and asked her to stop, she did not continue to do so. She was speaking to a colleague. However, when we consider the outrageous interruptions that came from the member who just spoke and the member for Kingston and the Islands during our leader's four-hour speech recently, when they would not allow him to even get through what he had to say minute to minute, we are talking about the acceptance of an apology that was given when demanded. It was accepted that the language that was spoken had been unparliamentary, and the apology was given. It is not consistent ruling for the member for Lethbridge to be told she cannot participate in debates afterward.
135 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/20/23 2:01:25 p.m.
- Watch
Not having been here in the chair when that was happening and not having witnessed it, I am hearing a he-said-she-said type of argument. I am going to need to go back, watch the video and consult with the table officers who were in the chamber to find out exactly what happened and how it evolved. I will come back at my soonest opportunity. Unfortunately, we do not have a lot of time left before the end of the year, and I am not sure how long it will take by the time we go through all the information, but I will be back as quickly as is humanly possible.
In the meantime, I want to remind all sides to please not call each other names or disrespect each other. Question period is coming up. Because both sides are so concerned with what is going on in the House, I am going to expect both sides to be very respectful of decorum, not shout at each other and be very respectful of the process.
177 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/20/23 2:02:40 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as we approach the recess for the summer months, I usually look forward to a time of peace and reflection and to enjoying good weather, but this summer will be different. Due to the baked-in increase in temperatures resulting from our addiction to fossil fuels and our failure to act, we are going to have a rough summer. To all of my colleagues and everyone in their constituencies, I hope that they are spared climate events that are terrifying.
We know that the rest of the summer will continue hot and dry, which means more forest fires. In some places, it will be hot and wet. The Atlantic basin is hotter than it has ever been, which suggests that we are going to have a worse hurricane season. We are looking at climate threats of all kinds, and at this point we can only ask that we take care of each other, fortify our communities in resilience, and finally act to address the climate crisis.
168 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
