House of Commons Hansard #16 of the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was aluminum.
Steven Guilbeault LiberalMinister of Canadian Heritage
Mr. Speaker, our government will always support a strong, free and independent press. The report that we received from an independent panel specifically proposes that news media be exempted from licensing requirements.
Let me be clear, in case we have not already been clear. We do not intend to impose licensing requirements on news organizations. Nor will we regulate their content.
Andrew Scheer ConservativeLeader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, that is a very narrow rejection of just one recommendation. There are multiple recommendations in this report that propose codes of conduct, regulations and fines for other types of media content and other types of platform.
Could the Prime Minister expand beyond this narrow rejection of just the question of licensing? It goes beyond that to other forms of codes of conduct, other aspects of this report that would restrict free speech.
Will the minister reject all those recommendations?
Steven Guilbeault LiberalMinister of Canadian Heritage
I said it in French, Mr. Speaker, and I will say it in English. Our government believes in a strong, free and independent press. The report we received from an independent panel specifically exempted news media from licensing requirements.
Our government has said, very clearly, that we will not impose licensing requirements on news organizations. Nor will we regulate news content.
Andrew Scheer ConservativeLeader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, the fact that he cannot go beyond that one narrow rejection and talk about the other forms of restrictions on free speech is very telling. We are not just talking about the independence of the press. We are talking about every single Canadian's right to free speech.
This report is also proposing codes of conduct and letting government determine “trusted content”. When the Minister of Canadian Heritage cannot even be trusted to get his answers straight, why would Canadians want him to tell them which sites can be trusted?
Steven Guilbeault LiberalMinister of Canadian Heritage
Mr. Speaker, we welcome the recommendations from this independent panel. I will be happy to sit with members of the opposition to look at the bill we will put on the table in the very near future.
Andrew Scheer ConservativeLeader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister said something in the House that simply was not true. He said that in the TMX case, the court had ruled that free, prior and informed consent did not constitute a veto. It did no such thing. The court ruled that the duty to consult did not grant a veto.
A United Nations declaration that the Liberal government is planning on proposing will in fact require free, prior and informed consent and will give one group that does not want to proceed with a project an effective veto.
Will the Liberals abandon their plans to implement this UN resolution?
David Lametti LiberalMinister of Justice
Mr. Speaker, I was honoured to receive in my mandate letter from the Prime Minister the task of implementing UNDRIP into our Canadian law. One of our priorities therefore is to introduce co-developed legislation to implement UNDRIP by the end of 2020.
We will be engaging with Canadians, indigenous and non-indigenous, and working in partnership in particular with indigenous peoples to make the declaration a reality in Canada as a framework for reconciliation.
Andrew Scheer ConservativeLeader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, the court ruling was very clear. The dozens and dozens of first nations communities that supported this project have a right to see it proceed. It is the government's plan to implement a United Nations resolution that would require free, prior and informed consent from every single group.
Could the minister explain what happens if one of those communities withholds its consent?
David Lametti LiberalMinister of Justice
Mr. Speaker, implementing UNDRIP is a priority for this government. Free, prior and informed consent is one of the key provisions of that.
I would ask that the leader of the opposition look at what has happened with Bill 41 in British Columbia with the implementation of UNDRIP and in which free, prior and informed consent is not considered to be a veto.
Alain Therrien Bloc La Prairie, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said during the election that he was not going to challenge Bill 21 at this time. The moment came yesterday with Quebec taxpayers' money.
François Legault said this morning that the Canadian Prime Minister was insulting Quebeckers. He said, “This is not insignificant. A national government that passed legislation with the support of the Quebec nation is being sued.”
My question is simple. Does the government acknowledge that it should not challenge Bill 21 with Quebeckers' money, against the will of Quebeckers?
Steven Guilbeault LiberalMinister of Canadian Heritage
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague that the court challenges program is a fully independent, non-political program.
We have no role to play in allocating funds or defining the eligibility criteria for the program. The decision is made by a committee of independent experts who ensure that the program is administered impartially and independently.
It seems to me that my colleague should understand the concept of independence.
Alain Therrien Bloc La Prairie, QC
Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, responding to the Bloc, the Minister of Justice issued an invitation to challenge bill 21.
At 2:27 p.m., he said, “There are Quebeckers who are currently challenging the bill in court, and that is the right forum.” The next day, we learned that the English Montreal School Board is challenging bill 21 with money from Ottawa.
It is your money, Mr. Speaker.
Will the minister finally be transparent and tell us whether he supports the bill 21 challenge, no matter who it is from?
Pablo Rodriguez LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, as we have said many times, bill 21 is a bill that was introduced by the Government of Quebec in the National Assembly and debated by Quebec MNAs. It is now law in Quebec. It is being challenged by other Quebeckers. We are simply monitoring the situation.
Jagmeet Singh NDP Burnaby South, BC
Mr. Speaker, once again, nearly 50 workers have lost their jobs. On top of that, they lost their benefits because the government refuses to change the bankruptcy laws.
Barrymore Furniture has filed for bankruptcy, which means nearly 50 workers will lose their jobs. They will also their benefits. For some workers that means losing as much as $50,000.
When will the Liberal government stop prioritizing bankers and financiers and, instead, change the bankruptcy laws to protect working people and their families?
Navdeep Bains LiberalMinister of Innovation
Mr. Speaker, as the member opposite has raised, we know that individuals are going through some difficult times, particularly individuals who are subjected to the bankruptcy law. That is why, in budget 2019, we took important steps to make insolvency proceedings fair and more transparent, like ensuring better oversight over corporate behaviour.
We understand that protecting Canadians and Canadian workers is a priority, and we will continue to do that.
Jagmeet Singh NDP Burnaby South, BC
Mr. Speaker, we asked the Liberal government how much it has spent on taking first nations children to court.
The Liberals replied that it has spent $5 million. When Cindy Blackstock asked the same question, however, they said it was over $8 million.
How much is it? How much is the government spending on taking first nations kids to court? Is it over $5 million, as they told us, or is it over $8 million, as they told Cindy Blackstock?
My question is simple. How much money is the Liberal government spending on taking first nations kids to court?
David Lametti LiberalMinister of Justice
Mr. Speaker, we fully agree that we must compensate first nations children harmed by past government policies. The Department of Justice has a consistent formula that officials use to calculate legal costs in all these matters.
As we have said previously, our focus remains on finding a fair and equitable solution for first nations children who have been negatively impacted by child and family policies. That remains the same.
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Mr. Speaker, we have just learned that two Canadians contracted the coronavirus on a cruise ship with 3,700 passengers, including 251 Canadians, in Japan. Among them are Diane and Bernard Ménard, a Gatineau couple who are currently confined to their cabin. In their case, the problem is that her health could deteriorate since she has run out of medication for her diabetes. Can the Prime Minister tell us whether he has a plan to look after our Canadians who are in a vulnerable situation on that ship?
François-Philippe Champagne LiberalMinister of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his important question. Naturally, this is a situation that we are monitoring very closely. As members know, the health and safety of Canadians abroad is a high priority. We are aware that we have 255 Canadians on that ship. Consular authorities are currently in contact with each of those individuals to provide any consular assistance they may require. We will always be there for Canadians abroad.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Speaker, yesterday during question period, the Prime Minister called Ambassador Dominic Barton a deep expert in how we would move forward on improving the situation of Canadians in China. However, when asked about the detention of Huseyin Celil, Barton claimed that Celil was not a Canadian citizen. Celil's citizenship is not acknowledged by China because he happens to be a dual national, but a Canadian is a Canadian.
Does the Prime Minister still have confidence in his ambassador and will he set the ambassador straight about Mr. Celil's citizenship?
François-Philippe Champagne LiberalMinister of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, Canadians would agree that a Canadian is a Canadian. I am happy that on this side of the House we understand that.
We are deeply concerned about Mr. Celil and we will continue to raise his case at every opportunity at senior levels. We will continue to call upon the Chinese government to give Canadian officials consular access in order to determine his well-being and offer him assistance, like we will do for every Canadian.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Speaker, the question was not about buzzwords; it was about citizenship. The ambassador told the committee yesterday that this Canadian citizen, who has been in prison for 15 years and has never met his youngest son, was not a Canadian citizen.
Could the minister stand in his place, at the very least, and set the ambassador straight; tell us that he believes Mr. Celil to be a citizen; and that he will call the ambassador and tell him to recognize, publicly, the Canadian citizenship of this long-detained Canadian?
François-Philippe Champagne LiberalMinister of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, I think everyone in the House recognizes that Mr. Celil is a Canadian. We will always stand up for Canadians. We recognize he is a Canadian. We will provide consular assistance. We will continue to assist him, like we would do for every Canadian around the world.
Bob Benzen Conservative Calgary Heritage, AB
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister said that law enforcement officers could not seize gun licences. He is wrong. An RPAL or PAL is invalidated when it is seized by police for public safety and that person has no ability at law to possess or acquire any firearm.
Will the Prime Minister now admit that Canada has long had legal options to seize firearms in public safety scenarios, and apologize for misleading the House yesterday?
Bill Blair LiberalMinister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear that red-flag laws save lives. I have actually used those sections of the Criminal Code to seize firearms in these dangerous situations. I can also advise the House of the limitations of those laws.
We know that the average assaulted woman in Canada is assaulted 25 times in a domestic relationship before the police are called. Seventy per cent of the firearm deaths in the country are suicides. We know there are people who are expounding violence and hatred against visible minorities.
These laws will empower Canadians to take action to render a potentially deadly situation safe.