The Speaker

I am now prepared to respond to the question of privilege raised on June 11, 2019, by the hon. member for Banff—Airdrie, concerning the broadcasting of the June 6, 2019 sitting.

First and foremost, I want to sincerely thank the member for raising this issue. While the matter can be more closely identified as administrative in nature, rather than a question of privilege, it is nonetheless important.

The ability for the House of Commons to communicate and disseminate its proceedings is essential in order for the public to follow the debates in our Parliament. Members must have confidence in our capacity to make available these debates. This is done, in part at least, through the public broadcasting of the proceedings of the House of Commons and its committees, which offers viewers accurate and complete debates of the House.

In fact, broadcasting of all proceedings of the House dates back to 1977. Since 2003, proceedings have also been available live through ParlVu, a service offered through our website for live and on-demand broadcasting of the proceedings. This latter service allows members to retrieve parts of the audio or televised proceedings through the ParlVu portal.

As the member explained, it is this service portal that is at the core of the issue raised. A review of the events that occurred on June 6 and the following days revealed that there was a technical problem at the opening of that sitting at 10:00 a.m that has a direct impact on the capacity to access some video footage.

Fortunately, I can confirm that the missing portion at the start of the sitting on Thursday, June 6, from 10:00 a.m. up to 10:09:52 a.m., is available through ParlVu, as it should be. I am also pleased that, though part of the video was missing for a short while, the audio, its interpretation and the official debates were at all times at members' disposal and readily available.

The entire incident was certainly unfortunate and unsatisfactory for the member. On behalf of the administration, I apologize for this error. I have been assured that corrective measures are being taken to prevent this from occurring again. I would also like to thank the member for his diligence in pursuing this matter. Social media has become very important for members, particularly in their efforts to communicate information to their constituents.

I thank all hon. members for their attention.

The Speaker

Pursuant to section 79.22 of the Parliament of Canada Act, it is my duty to present to the House a report from the Parliamentary Budget Officer entitled “Closing the Gap: Carbon pricing for the Paris target”.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's responses to five petitions.

While I am on my feet, I move:

That the House do now proceed to orders of the day.

The Deputy Speaker

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Agreed.

No.

The Deputy Speaker

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Yea.

The Deputy Speaker

All those opposed will please say nay.

Nay.

The Deputy Speaker

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

The Speaker

I declare the motion carried.

Hon. Bardish Chagger (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-68, An Act to amend the Fisheries Act and other Acts in consequence, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the stage of consideration of the Senate amendments stage of the said bill; and

That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration of the said stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment

The Deputy Speaker

Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period. I would invite all hon. members who wish to participate in the 30-minute question period to please rise.

Accordingly, I would ask all hon. members to limit their interventions to approximately one minute. That includes the minister responding to the questions. Opposition members are given preference during the 30-minute period, but some questions will be taken from the government side as well.

We will now proceed to questions. The hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George.

Mr. Todd Doherty (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC)

Mr. Speaker, here we have it, time allocation once again being put on a bill by a government that said it would let debate reign.

Could the minister table in the House any evidence where the changes that were made to the Fisheries Act under the previous government resulted in any harmful alteration, destruction or disruption of fish or fish habitat?

Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson (Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.)

Mr. Speaker, the government consulted broadly and widely on this bill. The consensus among all of the folks who made submissions during the consultation was that there was a need to restore protections for fish and fish habitat that were removed when the previous government gutted the bill in 2012. There were extensive discussions in this chamber and in the other place, totalling almost 39 days of debate.

Canadians are expecting us to deliver on what we said in 2015. They are expecting us to restore the protections for fish and fish habitat, and that is exactly what we are doing.

Ms. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP)

Mr. Speaker, here we are again. The government is bringing forward closure, effectively to shut down debate. For a government that actually promised that the Liberals would be different from the Harper Conservatives, it has brought in more closure of debates, proportionately, than the Harper government.

How can the government justify this and call it democracy?

Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson

Mr. Speaker, let me provide a little context for the hon. member. This bill was introduced over a year ago. It went through three days of debate at second reading; eight days of committee debate, including 46 witnesses; four days of debate at report stage; and three days of debate presently. In the other chamber, it was nine days of debate at second reading, 10 days of debate at committee and three days of debate at third reading. In total, this is almost 39 days of debate.

That is a lot of debate and a lot of consideration for a very important bill that we are very proud of.

Mr. Robert Sopuck (Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, CPC)

Mr. Speaker, the minister is being very disingenuous here. I sat in on the hearings of Bill C-68. Not a single opponent of what we did in 2012 could prove, in any way, shape or form, that those changes had any effect on fish populations or fish communities. Colleagues can look at the record.

Under our former Conservative government, in 2010, for example, the Pacific salmon run in the Fraser River was a record. In 2014, that run was even higher. Under the Liberal government's watch, Pacific salmon stocks are collapsing and the Chinook salmon stock is the poster boy for that.

Our committee produced a unanimous report on Atlantic salmon, with a number of recommendations. We saw the minister's response. Not a single part of that letter dealt with the 17 unanimous recommendations, such as smallmouth bass in Miramichi Lake, overfishing by Greenland and excessive predation by seals and striped bass. The response did not deal with any of that.

Why is this department so inept and uncaring for fisheries communities and fish stocks?

Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson

Mr. Speaker, I think the subject of the debate today is Bill C-68, and I would tell my hon. colleague that the department conducted extensive consultations. Over 2,000 Canadians registered online, and over 5,000 filled out questionnaires. There were 170 meetings with indigenous groups, 200 submissions from indigenous people, 208 letters to the minister and many meetings in person. It was virtually unanimous that we needed to restore protections for fish and fish habitat that were taken from the Fisheries Act by the previous government, which gutted the protections for fish and fish habitat.

We are very proud to be delivering on a campaign commitment that is so important to Canadians. We are doing that now.