Debates of May 4th, 2021

Federal Dental Care Plan

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for St. John's East for introducing the motion before us today and for his tireless advocacy in support of universal, public dental care in Canada.

Before I go further, I cannot let the completely incorrect comments of the member for Montarville go unremarked upon. He is absolutely 100% incorrect about the jurisdictional arguments he just made. As a matter of fact, health care has been defined by the Supreme Court of Canada as a shared jurisdiction and there is no mention whatsoever of health care in the Constitution. There is a reference in section 92 to the establishment, maintenance and management of hospitals. There is no question that hospitals fall under provincial jurisdiction, but health care has been ruled to be shared. That is, of course, why we have the Canada Health Act. My hon. colleague spent a long time trying to argue that the federal government cannot establish an expanded basket of services, but of course, the Canada Health Act is exactly what establishes coverage for health care in this country. Lest any Canadian watching this fall under the misapprehension that we cannot create an expanded basket of care to include dental services, the member needs to be corrected on that.

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought the immeasurable value of Canada's public health care system into stark focus. Over 50 years ago, it was the aspiration and dedication of New Democrat Tommy Douglas and those inspired by him that built our present system, which ensures that every Canadian can access physician and hospital care anywhere in this country as a matter of right. This cherished institution defines us as a nation. It is an affirmation that we will take care of each other at our most vulnerable. It is a reflection of our commitment to equality and justice. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has also served as a tragic reminder that our health care system is not perfect and it is not complete. Many important health services remain uncovered across Canada. For these, patients remain at the mercy of their ability to pay. This is contrary to Tommy Douglas's dream, which was to build a comprehensive system of health care.

The motion before us today would help address one of the most glaring and illogical gaps in our public system: dental care. Many Canadians may not know that dental care was envisioned to be part of our universal health care system when it was recommended in the 1960s. It was only the shortage of qualified dentists at the time that prevented it from being covered by our present system. This shortage was solved decades ago. By the way, there was no constitutional impediment to including it in the 1960s.

It would constitute an important interim measure toward the inclusion of full dental care in Canada's health care system. Indeed, the omission of dental coverage from our universal health care system is both a pressing public health concern and a social justice issue. There is simply no logical reason whatsoever for excluding oral health from universal coverage. It is as important a part of overall health as care for any other part of our body. Oral health diseases are some of the most prevalent chronic diseases in Canada, yet they are largely preventable.

There are also links between poor oral health and the severity of serious health conditions such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease and respiratory infections. In fact, recent research from McGill University has found that those with poor dental hygiene tend to experience more severe COVID-19 symptoms. The most common surgery performed on preschool children at most pediatric hospitals in Canada is for the treatment of dental decay. In seniors, poor oral health is a risk factor for aspiration pneumonia, dehydration and infirmity, yet many retirement home and long-term care facility residents do not receive adequate oral health care due to cost and access issues. It affects pregnant women, leading to low birth weight and premature births.

Numbers cannot quantify the pain, social impacts and economic losses suffered by those with untreated dental problems, often for life. However, some 33% of Canadians, or 12 million Canadians, have no dental insurance and nearly 7 million Canadians avoid the dentist every year because of the cost. The economic impacts of COVID-19 have made things worse. Millions of people have lost their jobs and with them their employment-sponsored benefits. Unsurprisingly, this has hurt low-income and marginalized Canadians the most. Canada's most vulnerable people have the highest rates of dental decay and disease, but the worst access to oral health care services. Indigenous populations have nearly twice as much dental disease as non-indigenous Canadians, and income-related inequalities in oral health are greater in women than in men.

Moreover, at a time when their wages have flatlined and their job prospects grown increasingly insecure, young people have also seen benefits like dental insurance rapidly scaled back or eliminated by employers. As a result, Canadians aged 18 to 34 are the most likely group to report cost as a barrier to dental care.

If we can agree that everyone in Canada should have equal access to health care, regardless of their age, income or job status, then we cannot justify the continued exclusion of oral health care. That is why, during the last election, Canada's New Democrats put forward a plan to provide dental coverage to uninsured Canadians with household incomes below $90,000 as a first step, a down payment, toward universal public dental care.

In fall 2019, the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated this program would provide immediate help to 4.3 million people. However, an updated PBO costing analysis conducted at my request and released in October 2020, revealed that the need for this program has grown dramatically. The PBO estimated that 6.5 million Canadians would now benefit from the proposed program.

Under the NDP's plan, there would be no cost for individuals with a household income under $70,000 and copayments would be required at a sliding scale for those with a household income up to $90,000. The minimum basket of services covered would comprise a full range of necessary services, from diagnostics to prevention and restorative services. The program would be administered by the federal government, or by provinces and territories, upon agreement, and existing provincial and territorial programs that provide the same services would continue.

At their first meeting following the 2019 election, the leader of the NDP pressed the Prime Minister to work across party lines in this minority Parliament to implement dental care for all Canadians. I was pleased to see the government acknowledge this NDP priority in the 2019 Speech from the Throne. I was heartened to see that the Minister of Health's mandate letter from the Prime Minister contained a specific direction to work with Parliament to study and analyse the possibility of national dental care. Unfortunately the Liberal government has failed to take any action on this commitment to date.

In fact, when New Democrats put forward a motion to fund our dental care plan by adjusting a proposed tax break for those earning $100,000 a year or more, the Liberals voted it down. When we put forward a plan to fund dental care and other essential programs by taxing the windfalls reaped by pandemic profiteers and the ultrarich, the Liberals voted it down. Today we have an opportunity once again to move forward on universal public dental care in Canada. Let us not squander this moment.

To those who claim we cannot afford to establish this urgently needed program, I will offer them some perspective. The PBO estimates that ongoing program costs for the NDP's dental care plan would average $1.5 billion per year. That is not counting the savings that accrue when we keep Canadians out of emergency rooms in this country for dental pain, which is estimated to cost us at least $150 million per year, without even providing the appropriate care.

Canada as a whole spends about $265 billion each year on health care. That means we can cover every Canadian who does not currently have dental care for about half of one per cent. I would also note we could easily pay for this program by cancelling just a fraction of the fossil fuel subsidies we currently provide to big oil companies, if we asked Canadians if they would rather their tax dollars go to essential dental care or to Imperial Oil or Royal Dutch Shell.

Oral health is not a luxury. If we could marshal hundreds of billions of dollars in fiscal firepower to fight the COVID-19 pandemic, surely we can afford to devote a small fraction of those resources to support the long-term oral health of Canadians. Universal public dental care was first recommended in Canada by the “Royal Commission on Health Services, 1961-1964 ”. Canadians have waited long enough. Access to medically necessary dental care should be a right in this country, not a privilege. It is time to roll up our sleeves and begin the work necessary to make this overdue health care service a reality for all Canadians. Our predecessors stood in this place and got medicare established in Canada. It is time we did the same for dental care, so let us stand together and take the first step today. Canadians are counting on us.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands has about a minute and a half to start, and then the rest will go the next time this matter is before the House.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, you and I keep finding ourselves in this position where I am getting half of my time now and afterward I will get the rest. However, I do appreciate the opportunity to at least start talking about such an incredibly important issue.

There is no doubt in my mind that, as indicated by previous members, in particular the member for Vancouver Kingsway, who spoke before me, when our health care system was set up there was an expectation that a pharmacare system and, indeed, a dental care system would follow shortly thereafter. It is long overdue that we get to that point. That is why I was very pleased to see that the Standing Committee on Health recently decided to study the idea of a national dental care program.

We need to start on this immediately. We need to get moving on it. We need to get to a point where we can put together a system. Like the member for Vancouver Kingsway, who spoke before me, I agree that if we only look at things from the perspective of cost without looking at the savings attached to them, we are doing a serious disservice to the potential of bringing in a dental care program. The same can be said for pharmacare; it is the exact same logic. We just have to get to the point where we have the data to support it and the will politically, collectively as a House, to push forward with the agenda. I have no doubt that in the end we will be a much better country as a result.

I will stop there, but I look forward to continuing when the House resumes the matter.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Immigrations, Refugees and Citizenship

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, it has been brought to light that Canada's visa application centre in China has been subcontracted to a Chinese state-owned company run and operated by the Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau. The company that was awarded the contract, VFS Global, has confirmed at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration that the Canadian government knew right from the beginning that services were being subcontracted and that it was informed of the ownership structure of the company.

This happened under the watch of the Harper government, and clearly the Conservatives were asleep at the switch. Former immigration minister, Jason Kenney, now the Premier of Alberta, said he did not know about it. I cannot help but ask how on earth he did not know about something as significant as that. It speaks to the level of his incompetence and disregard for the important work conducted by Canada’s visa application centres.

The saga does not end there. In 2018, the contract was renewed by the Liberal government, yet no changes were made. In fact, Public Services and Procurement Canada confirmed that it did not even know that services in Canada’s visa application centre in China had been subcontracted to a company owned by the Beijing police until The Globe and Mail brought it to their attention in February 2021. The Liberals say they underwent a vigorous process for the contract renewals. However, somehow the Liberal government was still oblivious to the fact that Canada’s visa application centre is effectively run and operated by people hired by the Beijing police.

It really shakes one's confidence about the government’s vetting process and makes one wonder what sort of security checks are done. Was CSIS even consulted on this? A former CSIS director was quoted as saying, “I cannot think of a more promising entry point for China’s cyberspies.” According to Richard Kurland, “The VFS organization may have more personal information on applicants for immigrant services than entire countries do.”

It has been reported by The Globe and Mail that 86% of staff are being hired by the company owned by the Beijing police. In what world would having 86% of the staff employed by an arm of the Beijing police be a good idea, when they are receiving the kind of sensitive information that visa application centres handle? Since the subcontractor is a Chinese-owned state firm, according to Chinese regulations the party's secretary must be the chair of the board of the company and the general manager position must be filled by the deputy party committee secretary. This means the subcontractor handling Canada’s visa centre services is run and operated by the party secretary and deputy party secretary of the Chinese Communist Party.

I went on Google and was able to find the minutes of the CCP meeting in which it appointed its party secretary and deputy party secretary to these positions. Can anyone imagine that the chair of the company running and operating Canada’s visa application centre in China is the party secretary of the CCP branch in that region and the general manager is the deputy party secretary? They have to swear an oath of allegiance to the Chinese Communist Party, and it is their duty to execute the will of the party. That is where their first loyalties lie. If we were prospective applicants, would we feel confident that our personal information for the immigration application is being handled by a company owned by the Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau? If the Chinese get wind of the fact that a pro-democracy activist or someone who is sympathetic to the Uighurs in China is trying to get a visa to Canada, do we not think they would be in jeopardy?

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the chance to address the question from the hon. member.

I want to start by emphasizing that safeguarding applicants' personal information and privacy is always the top priority for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC, and the Government of Canada.

In fact, IRCC uses visa application centres, or VACs, to provide administrative support and biometric collection services in local languages to visa applicants. VACs do not play a role in the decision-making process and are expressly forbidden to provide any visa-related advice to applicants. All decisions are made by highly trained IRCC officials.

As well, all immigration information gathered at VACs is transmitted directly to Canada and is stored in Canada. This is a one-way process and operates similarly to a client-facing web page. No immigration data is retained at the VACs, and Canadian officials closely monitor the activities of VACs around the world to ensure that privacy standards are met, as per Canadian laws. In addition, the Government of Canada performed its due diligence in vetting the contractor, VFS Global, and has required that all employees in VACs who have access to personal information, including subcontractor employees, are screened to Canadian standards.

I should also note that Public Services and Procurement Canada's contract security program, in partnership with IRCC, commissioned the lead Canadian security agencies to establish the required measures. Their advice was an integral part of the contractor screening process and was used to identify the risk mitigation strategies that should be considered when opening VACs around the world.

As the hon. member understands very well, there are risks to operating in any foreign environment, and the Government of Canada is well aware of the risks of operating in China. IRCC officials closely monitor the activities at visa application centres to ensure that our stringent privacy standards, as detailed in the contract, are met.

As part of this work, since the beginning of the contract, IRCC has regularly carried out audits and inspections for compliance at all VACs around the world. This includes both scheduled and unannounced audits and site reviews conducted by IRCC officials. Since 2018, IRCC has reviewed and conducted over 20 site visits to VACs in China alone. IRCC video cameras also monitor every time biometrics are submitted.

The contractors must notify Canada immediately of any data breaches at the VACs, as well as any other situations or difficulties that may arise or will have an impact upon the scope of the work, security and protection of personal information included. IRCC is responsible, in consultation with PSPC, for determining whether a reported problem constitutes a privacy breach, and if a privacy breach were to occur, a report would be created to report how the breach occurred, the remedial actions being taken and the mitigation measures proposed by the contractor to prevent reoccurence. No privacy breaches have been reported to date.

VFS Global has been compliant with its security requirements pursuant to its contract with the Government of Canada. The Government of Canada will continue to improve and implement measures to enhance security requirements, especially in the international context.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, the government did not even know until recently that the visa application centre operating in Beijing is owned by the Beijing police. The Liberals keep on saying, “Don't worry, be happy”. It does not matter that the information never gets into the system or that the information is wiped clean after 30 days on the network. The fact of the matter is that a prospective applicant's situation may be compromised on day one. The minute they walk into that office and hand their file over to staff, who have been hired by Beijing police, they may be compromised.

In the United States, the handling of the visa application services in China is being done in-house.

My question for the Liberal government is this: Why can Canada not do the same, ensure there is absolute full protection and bring that service back in-house? We should not have a visa application centre in China operated and run by the Communist Chinese Party. We should not be doing that.

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will repeat for the benefit of my hon. colleague that VACs do not play a role in the decision-making process and are expressly forbidden to provide any visa-related advice to applicants.

In fact, as I stated, all immigration information gathered at VACs is transmitted directly to Canada and is stored in Canada. This is a one-way process, and it operates similar to a client-facing web page. All VAC employees with access to personal information obtain security screenings, and PSPC, in partnership with IRCC, engaged lead Canadian security agencies to inform the measures required.

The Government of Canada is aware of the risks of operating in China and our assessments of China have evolved since VACs were originally contracted. As I stated earlier, we will continue to keep Canadians and their personal information safe. As always, we are looking for ways to improve our already robust system, particularly in the international context.

Natural Resources

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, people who have known me for a long time will know that I have always been a big sports fan. Like many people my age who grew up in western Canada, I have many fond memories of Wayne Gretzky and the Edmonton Oilers, and their Stanley Cup dynasty of the 1980s.

One of the most entertaining parts about sports has to be the post-game interviews, especially with the coach of the losing team. Often the coach of the losing team would say, “You know what, the team had a decent third period, but the team just didn't show up to play in the first two periods of the game. By the time the team started to play well in the third period, there just wasn't enough time left on the clock to win the game.”

I see a lot of similarities between those defeated hockey coaches in their post-game interviews and the way the Liberal government has been handling the Enbridge Line 5 pipeline dispute.

On June 27, 2019, the Government of Michigan filed a law suit in state court to have Enbridge Line 5 shut down. That means that for the Liberal government, on June 27, 2019, the puck dropped and the clock on the scoreboard started ticking. Unfortunately, we are not talking today about a hockey game. We are talking about tens of thousands of jobs in both eastern and western Canada.

The Enbridge Line 5 pipeline transports half a million barrels a day of Saskatchewan and Alberta oil to eastern Canada through the state of Michigan. It connects to Sarnia, Ontario, where 6,500 refinery workers depend on this pipeline for their livelihood. The refined petroleum products go on to supply half of Ontario and Quebec's gasoline, diesel and home heating fuel as well as 100% of the jet fuel for Toronto Pearson International Airport. The jobs of tens of thousands of Canadians depend on the continued operation of this pipeline.

This is an issue that the Prime Minister should have raised directly with President Trump in 2019 or in 2020. After Joe Biden was elected President last November, the Prime Minister should have raised this issue with him, shortly after his inauguration in January.

However, here we are, nearly two years after the Government of Michigan filed its law suit. That is nearly two years after the puck dropped. Where is the Prime Minister in this game? The Prime Minister has not even laced up his skates yet. The Prime Minister has not even gotten onto the ice yet. The Prime Minister has not even done any pre-game warm-ups yet.

Here we are, late in the third period, with just eight days left before the State of Michigan shuts down Enbridge Line 5, and then it is game over for tens of thousands of Canadian jobs.

Fortunately, there is still time left on the clock. There is still the 1977 transit pipeline treaty between our two countries, which prevents a U.S. state from shutting down an international pipeline unilaterally, but this treaty has to be enforced.

Why has the Prime Minister not yet had a direct phone call with President Biden specifically on the issue of enforcing the 1977 transit pipeline treaty between our two countries?

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for raising such an important issue.

The Government of Canada certainly shares his concerns about Line 5. It is a vital North American economic artery, as he mentioned, that carries 540,000 barrels day of essential energy products and brings western Canada petroleum products to refineries in central Canada and the U.S. Midwest.

This is one of the cases that concerns us all, and we need to adopt a team Canada approach in response to the Governor of Michigan's attempt to close this line.

That consensus is clear in the excellent interim report that the Special Committee on Canada-United States Economic Relationship is currently examining, a report that highlights on the true solidarity between the witnesses and the members of all parties.

The Governor of Michigan based her opposition on concerns about the safety of a short stretch of the line at the Straits of Mackinac. This is the body of water connecting Lake Huron to Lake Michigan. I have two points. First, Canadians care as deeply as Americans about the integrity of our Great Lakes, full stop.

Second, Line 5 is completely safe for the straits. What is more, Enbridge monitors the pipeline in that area 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and the company wants to do more. As part of its Great Lakes tunnel project, the pipeline would be secured in a concrete tunnel below the lake bed, making the already safe pipeline even safer.

We are making our message clear in both Michigan and Washington, D.C. The Prime Minister raised our concerns during his virtual summit with President Biden in February. The Minister of Natural Resources is pressing the issue with energy secretary Jennifer Granholm, and so are our diplomats in the U.S. capital and in Michigan.

Our main argument is that the continued operation of Line 5 is in everyone's best interests on both sides of the border. It is certainly in the best interests of the thousands of people whose jobs depend on it.

For Michigan, feedstock from this pipeline supplies the state's refinery. It is the source of more than half of Michigan's propane, heating thousands of homes and businesses, and also the source of most of the jet fuel used at the Detroit Metro Airport. In fact, a new report from the American Petroleum Institute highlights the critical and growing importance of cross-border energy trade between the two nations, with the conclusion that in the U.S. this trade most benefits six states, four of them in the Midwest region: Illinois, Minnesota, Indiana and Michigan.

We believe this conflict will be resolved. Enbridge and Michigan are currently engaged in court-mandated mediation, and we fully support the parties working toward a constructive resolution.

President Biden and the Prime Minister officially recognized the economic benefits of energy security for our bilateral relationship. They mentioned our highly integrated infrastructure as a key element of our prosperity and shared security. The President and the Prime Minister also agreed to work together to ensure our recovery after the pandemic. That recovery will enable—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. The member's time is up.

The member for Regina—Wascana.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, when it comes to the Enbridge Line 5 pipeline dispute, I would think that the transit pipeline treaty should have been one of the first plays in the team Canada playbook. This treaty between Canada and the United States was signed in 1977, when Pierre Trudeau was Prime Minister. One of its biggest advocates in the U.S. was a rookie senator from Delaware by the name of Joe Biden, who, of course, is the current President. To stay with our hockey analogy, bringing this treaty and its enforcement to the forefront should have been done in the first period of the game, shortly after the opening faceoff, not left until overtime or the shootout.

When is the Prime Minister going to stand up for international law, stand up for tens of thousands of working Canadians and save Enbridge Line 5?

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to emphasize how encouraged we are by the “Team Canada” approach adopted by the Special Committee on the Economic Relationship Between Canada and the United States, by provincial and municipal governments, by Canada's chambers of commerce and by construction unions, as well as by experts in Canada-U.S. relations.

I also want to cite some comments made at committee by a senior executive of Enbridge, Vern Yu. A disruption, he said, would hurt both economies, triggering “energy shortages” and threatening high-paying jobs in both countries. For what purpose? He asserts that Line 5 is “the most scrutinized” pipeline in North America and he consistently has found that this pipeline is fit for service on the Straits of Mackinac.

Canadian Heritage

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-10 is an attack on the freedoms of Canadians, Particularly in its present form, it fundamentally threatens our way of life. Officially, the bill is about changing the Broadcasting Act to bring online streaming services under broadcasting regulations, but it now also seeks to create a framework whereby social media companies and users can be directly regulated by the unelected bureaucrats at the CRTC.

Social media platforms today are the primary place where public debate takes place. They are the public space. They are like radio and television, where large companies broadcast artistic content through limited airwaves. They are the place where all kinds of conversations take place between free individuals expressing and critiquing important ideas. Previously public and private conversations now all take place in this online space. Therefore, any regulation of social media is necessarily regulation of speech, of debate and of that public square.

Broadcast regulation is not about combatting hateful content. There already are Criminal Code provisions dealing with this. Certainly there is a case for regularly re-evaluating those provisions, but broadcasting regulation is about shaping content with other objectives in mind, such as seeking representation of what is deemed Canadian content and establishing quotas for representation of certain views or experiences. Applying this approach to social media means that the government would have dramatic capacity to shape the content which is shown and the user experience on social media.

The algorithms that shape this experience are already fairly opaque in terms of what is seen by whom and why. For this reason, Bill C-10 is a particularly dangerous form of state censorship. Normally, censorship is explicit and transparent; people know who and where the censors are. However, in the world envisioned by Bill C-10, the dialogue happening in the public square, what we see and cannot see, is shaped by state-directed algorithms advancing certain kinds of content over others, sometimes without our knowing about it at all.

Whether individual users are treated as broadcasters or not, their content and who sees it would be controlled through state regulation of social media platforms. In a free society, the state must not take it upon itself to control the flow of information in the public square, but Bill C-10 would create control by default.

At one time, being Liberal meant adhering to the values of freedom, believing that the free exchange of ideas leads to ideas being measured and conclusions being drawn that best harness the wisdom and experience of the wider community. However, today we are seeing increasing efforts to create fear about the implications of free and open discussion. We are warned about misinformation and fake news, about the dangers of populism and public confusion and about the need to trust authority. Some are using these warnings to push us toward an illiberal reality whereby growing state control is justified and powerful people are less likely to be held accountable.

Let us not shy away from the fact that in a free society, people are going to say stupid and false things on the Internet. When that happens, there is no need to engage in hyperbolic moral panic. Just tell them they are wrong and tell them why. Truly liberal people do not freak out about the fact that other people do not believe things that are true. Totalitarian control of the flow of information, even in pursuit of truth, inevitably leads to the suppression of contrary opinions which, in the long run, could turn out to have merit. Free societies allow competition between different ideas to be lived out and allow people to come to conclusions based on what they observe.

There used to be so much optimism about the online community's capacity to usher in a small-l liberal golden age of free and equal debate and competition no longer dominated by powerful industrial actors or governments. However, now, perversely, politicians who call themselves Liberal are pushing a return to reactionary state control of the flow of information and creating regulations that advantage strong incumbent players.

In the midst of this situation, I am proposing amendments which seek to protect free societies from foreign-state-backed interference. When foreign states control our airwaves and shut out contrary voices, that undermines the free exchange of ideas that Canadians want to see.

When I asked about this proposed amendment around foreign content, the government claimed that it did not have a position because it wanted to let the committee do its work independently. However, now we can see clearly from government communications that the Liberal MPs are being directed by the PMO. Would it not be ironic if, while seeking to censor the speech of Canadians, the government failed to act in response to the efforts of foreign states to control our airwaves. The government must fix Bill C-10 or withdraw it.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to respond to the question raised by my colleague, the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

The proposed modernized Broadcasting Act is about fairness, a value that is essential in any healthy democracy. We believe that Canadian broadcasters deserve a fair shot at competing against streaming services. Everybody who benefits from the system should contribute to it, therefore, a modernized Broadcasting Act would require streaming services to support the creation and discovery of Canadian music and stories, creators and producers.

A fair broadcasting system can not only keep citizens informed, but also amplify the voices of marginalized people. Over 70 years ago, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Thanks to the declaration's legacy and that of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the government is acting on its commitment to protect and defend human rights by preventing gender-based violence, fighting racism and eliminating all forms of discrimination.

Bill C-10 would ensure a more faithful representation of the diversity of Canadian society by creating a broadcasting system whose programming and employment opportunities are more inclusive. A system that serves the needs of all Canadians is, by definition, a more democratic system.

Bill C-10 would also set the stage for a broadcasting system that serves the interests of francophones and anglophones, indigenous peoples, Canadians from racialized communities, and Canadians of diverse ethnocultural backgrounds, socio-economic statuses, abilities and disabilities, sexual orientations, gender identities and expressions and ages.

Along these same lines, the bill would provide the CRTC with new, flexible regulatory tools intended to encourage the development of diverse Canadian expression by, for example, incentivizing diversity in key creative positions, or by supporting programs and creators from diverse communities.

As we continue to move through clause by clause, it is through looking at these aforementioned values that we shall continue to examine and debate all motions presented before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, what an incredible answer that was from the government. Its members talk about human rights with no reference to the core human rights question of freedom of speech and freedom of expression. That is what this discussion is about. It is about the freedom of people of diverse backgrounds, of different racial, ethnic and religious groups and sexual orientations to express themselves online and curate their own content without the government making decisions.

When we have this sort of bureaucratic, top-down effort to promote diversity, it is code for the government deciding what is going to be in our news feeds based on criteria that it establishes through unelected bureaucrats. It is giving them this mandate to control what is in our news feeds on the basis of diversity.

How about having the government focus on giving all Canadians of all backgrounds the freedom to control their own content? Get the CRTC out of the social media content business and respect the human rights that are recognized in the charter, UN documents and elsewhere on fundamental principles of freedom of speech.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to correct the member opposite on a fact. This is not about political censorship. It simply is not. This is about modernizing the Broadcasting Act, quite simply, and that was not a correct interpretation of what is being done at all.

However, we are guided in our values by the Charter of Rights and are going through an intersectional lens as we are committed to evidence-based decision-making in order to address systemic inequalities, whether systemic racism, unconscious bias, gender-based discrimination, barriers for persons with disabilities, discrimination against LGBTQ2 communities or inequities faced by all vulnerable populations.

I am happy to stress and support our government's commitment to building a stronger and more resilient country for everyone.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:15 p.m.)