Debates of May 10th, 2021

Health

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the best way to manage an election during a pandemic is to not hold an election.

By imposing a gag order on Bill C-19, the government is announcing that it not only wants an election but that it wants one as soon as possible. No one, except the government, thinks it is a good idea to have an election during a pandemic. More importantly, no one wants the rules of a pandemic election to be imposed by a government without any discussion. The Liberals are attacking the very heart of our democracy.

Does the government realize that voters' health is at risk?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, we do realize that. That is why we are asking parliamentarians to consider Bill C-19 in committee. With regard to the idea that a minority government could impose legislation on Parliament, I think that my colleague, who has quite a bit of experience, knows that we would need the consent of the other parties to move forward with such a bill.

My colleague is the one who is about to trigger an election by continually voting no confidence in the government. That is something we have not done until now.

National Defence

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, the Prime Minister's chief of staff asked what more she could have done to help the victims of sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces. What more could the Liberals have done? Is she serious?

The Deschamps report, which describes the unhealthy, toxic culture in the military, has been available since 2015. What have the Liberals done since 2015? They have done nothing. In fact, they just ordered another study.

Why did the Liberals choose to shelve the Deschamps report and abandon the victims in the military?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, our government takes the allegations of sexual misconduct very seriously. No one should feel unsafe at work. That is why we passed Bill C-77, the declaration of victims rights. It puts victims at the core of the military justice system, which reviews unfounded cases. We created the sexual misconduct response centre, which provides confidential 24-7 support to CAF members anywhere in the world.

We know that we have a lot more work to do, and that is the work that we are going to get done. We are going to listen to survivors, and we are going to make sure that a zero-tolerance policy is enforced and that we give confidence to women in the Canadian Armed Forces.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, women are still waiting for the Liberals to take action to address the devastating issue of the sexualized culture within the armed forces. The government sat on the Deschamps report for six years. It could have implemented the recommendations and enforced meaningful actions, improving the ability of women and men to serve equally. However, it continues to take no responsibility on this issue, and now has proposed another report because it is forced to do so by public and political pressure.

Will the government finally take real action and immediate action to help service women and men rather than announcing yet another report?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, we have been taking action since we formed government. As I stated, we passed Bill C-77, the declaration of victims rights, which puts victims first, at the core of the military justice system. We created the sexual misconduct response centre and “The Path to Dignity and Respect”. We also put in place a response and support coordination program for CAF members who experience sexual misconduct.

A lot of work has been done, but at the end of day, more work needs to move forward to make sure that women in the Canadian Armed Forces have the confidence to come forward when misconduct is done. Our goal at the end of the day is to prevent this from happening in the first place, and we will get this done.

Canadian Heritage

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when the heritage minister first started coming under fire for Bill C-10, he insisted that YouTube content would not be censored. However, just yesterday the truth slipped out. Uh-oh. In an interview he said, “at some point the CRTC will be asked to put a threshold.” Wait a minute. With one breath the minister says YouTube users have nothing to worry about, but in his next breath he says that at some point they will be censored.

Why does the minister want to dictate to individual YouTubers what they can and cannot post?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, it was clear from the beginning that we wanted to focus on two things: one, for social media platforms to financially contribute to our cultural industry; and two, making our Canadian artists discoverable on platforms such as YouTube. Today I was relieved to see that the Conservatives are finally listening to the cultural sector and have stopped their unnecessary two-week-long filibuster.

We continue to stand with our artists and creators. We look forward to the resumption of the committee's work very soon. The cultural sector is behind us and in support of this bill.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is good that the minister is sticking to his talking points instead of trying to go on his own. That results in blunders.

Yesterday the minister admitted that if successful YouTubers with a lot of viewers make revenue from their content—oh my gosh, heaven forbid—the eye of the government will be on them. There are so many incredible entrepreneurs, artists and creators who have found a way to connect with other individuals and generate a bit of income from it. Why is the minister launching an attack on them?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. The bill is not about what Canadians can or cannot post online. It is very explicit in this regard. Helping Canadian artists and creators is at the heart of what Bill C-10 does. It actually gives them more opportunities to meet their own artists and creators. It does so by making sure that big streaming companies pay their fair share to our culture. It also ensures that Canadian artists are discoverable on these platforms. Our creators cannot afford to wait any longer.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, let me interpret that. What he is saying is that information will be censored, that certain videos will be moved to the top and others to the bottom, and that the government will dictate which is which.

Over the weekend, the minister had yet another blunder. Every time he goes out to “clarify” the intent of Bill C-10, he makes things worse. Within 24 hours, he had to issue two clarifications and an apology. It is obvious the minister does not know what is in his very own bill. It is so bad that just moments ago, the parliamentary secretary had to do the press conference instead of the minister.

Why does the government continue to try to defend the indefensible?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, if the Conservative members truly care about freedom of speech, they will let our democracy continue its work freely. This bill would not regulate the Internet, or what people choose to post online or even view online, not at all. Individual activities are explicitly exempt from all three requirements above.

Freedom of speech is not negotiable for our government. It is explicitly protected under this act and in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We will continue to abide by it. We will let the committee pursue its work, and if that means a charter review needs to go on, we will be happy to do it.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is crazy. In an interview on the weekend, the Minister of Canadian Heritage cited the wrong provision of his own bill and confirmed that the government's regulations could apply to social media accounts with a large following.

He said that the CRTC, not the government, would be in charge of the regulation. The minister confirmed that the Liberals want to attack freedom of expression and every time he opens his mouth he makes his bill more confusing and incomprehensible. Canadians are not buying it.

How does the minister explain the comments he made this weekend?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for giving me the opportunity to remind him of all the people and organizations across the country who support Bill C-10.

Among others, there is Pierre Trudel, professor at Université de Montréal's Faculty of Law and first chair holder of the L.R. Wilson chair in information technology and e-commerce law. There is also the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, the National Alliance of the Music Industry, the Association des distributeurs exclusifs de livres en langue française, the Société civile des auteurs multimédia, the Société des auteurs et compositeurs dramatiques, Copibec, the Association—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Order. The member for Richmond—Arthabaska.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are all fed up with hearing the minister say that because we want to protect freedom of expression, we Conservatives are against culture.

The minister has been playing petty politics since the beginning. If we are in this mess, he is the one solely responsible, since he did a complete about-face on the protection of social media users.

Can the minister show a modicum of honesty and admit to cultural stakeholders that were it not for his failure to protect freedom of expression, we would not be where we are today?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to paraphrase Jérôme Payette, the executive director of the Professional Music Publishers' Association. According to him, Conservatives are using misinformation, fear and filibustering to prevent the passage of a bill at the expense of our cultural future. He considers that to be loathsome. He says that the Conservative Party of Canada is against culture and he feels that we need Bill C-10. I would remind my hon. colleague that this does not come from me, but from people in the cultural sector.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister keeps quoting all kinds of people, but I would like to quote him. He said that this law should apply to people who are broadcasters or who act like broadcasters. He said that, if someone has a YouTube channel that garners millions of views and earns them money, the government will ask the CRTC to put a threshold. The next day, the minister said the opposite.

The fact is that, under this bill, which the minister and the Liberals themselves amended, any influencer, artist, politician or social media user can be regulated by the CRTC. The minister is attacking freedom of expression, period. Why?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share another quote from Jérôme Payette, who wrote the following to the member for Richmond—Arthabaska: “It is very disappointing that you and the [Conservative Party] have opted for partisanship at the expense of Quebec and Canadian culture. The C-10 study isn't even over yet. Yours is the only party threatening freedom of expression.”

It is purely political.

National Defence

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's Office has known since 2018 that allegations were circulating about the former chief of the defence staff, General Vance. As we know, these were allegations of sexual misconduct, but the Prime Minister's chief of staff claims that she did not know the nature of the accusations. With respect, I do not believe her.

Let us pretend for a moment that we do believe her. Assuming the Prime Minister's top advisor has known since 2018 that a major complaint of an unknown nature was circulating against the general, what did the Prime Minister do in those three years to shed light on this complaint?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, as I stated earlier, we did not know the nature of the specifics or the details of the information that was brought forward, but action was taken immediately and given to non-partisan public officials to take the appropriate action. No politician should ever be involved in an investigation.

We take incidents like this very seriously, and this is why we are working extremely hard to make culture changes not only inside the Canadian Armed Forces, but widely throughout government as well.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's chief of staff said she treated the complaint with the utmost seriousness even though she did not know the nature of it.

Basically, she knew that there were serious allegations against General Vance, but she did not tell the Prime Minister and she did not tell the Minister of National Defence, even though this was not the first time there had been allegations of sexual misconduct against Mr. Vance and even in the midst of Operation Honour, meant to address misconduct of this nature.

In short, the chief of staff did nothing to protect the victims. She basically protected the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence. Is that it?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to any type of allegations that are brought forward, no politician or political staff should ever be involved in any investigation. The information was sent forward immediately to the Privy Council officials, who are non-partisan, to look at the complaint.

We know that we have a lot more work to do, and we are going to get it done.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's Office was aware of serious allegations against the highest-ranking military officer and it ignored them.

What is worse, the Minister of National Defence knew, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the allegations involved sexual misconduct. He also ignored these allegations, which is inexcusable.

Since the Prime Minister did not take the allegations seriously, claiming he was unaware of the nature of these allegations, will he take them seriously now and fire the Minister of National Defence?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, as I stated, the nature of the specifics and the details was not provided, but action was taken immediately. Advice was given to make sure that Mr. Walbourne was contacted by the Privy Council Office. In this case, the very next day we made sure that non-partisan public officials from the Privy Council Office contacted Mr. Walbourne. Action was taken immediately. Politicians, or political staff, should never be involved in any type of investigation.

We know we have a lot more work to do to rebuild the confidence with the survivors who are coming forward, and we will get it done.