House of Commons Hansard #117 of the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was content.
Warren Steinley Conservative Regina—Lewvan, SK
Madam Speaker, at this hour, there may be issues with the ability to connect, but hopefully everyone can hear my speech now—
Paul Manly Green Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Madam Speaker, all of us who are online were locked out of the member's speech. We have not heard anything since the hon. member stood to speak.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes
So it was frozen for everybody online.
The hon. member for Hull—Aylmer.
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Madam Speaker, I would like to confirm that the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith is absolutely correct that all of us were cut off. I spoke with IT, and they were aware of it as well.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes
The member for Don Valley West.
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Madam Speaker, I can confirm and support the members that all of our screens were frozen for about four or five minutes.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes
We are going to give the opportunity to the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan to start from the beginning.
Warren Steinley Conservative Regina—Lewvan, SK
Madam Speaker, I will start from the beginning because I do not think we can pay honour to our fallen RCMP officer enough. For colleagues who missed it, this is the first time I have been on my feet since an RCMP officer in Saskatchewan was run over and killed in the line of duty. My thoughts and prayers are with Constable Shelby Patton's family.
I know his brothers and sisters are thinking about him. When one member is lost, the whole team is affected across the country. On behalf of the constituents of Regina—Lewvan, all Conservatives and all members in the House, our thoughts and prayers are with the Patton family. God bless them, and hopefully they can get through this very difficult time.
Moving on to Bill C-10, the bill talks about how we have to really make sure the rule of law is in place in our country. The member for Calgary Skyview brought up some very good points when asking the member for Yellowhead a question. There is a very diverse community in Calgary Skyview and the member talked about how many people have come to Canada because they see it as a beacon of light, a beacon of freedom, where people are not afraid to express themselves. They are not afraid to get in trouble with their government if they say something. We should always strive to be that beacon of freedom in Canada, where people are allowed to express themselves and have the freedom to put whatever they want online, where people can have independent thoughts without fear of government reprisal. A lot of the speeches on this side of the House have covered that topic again and again.
Our colleagues on the opposition and on the government side have asked why we are so against this bill. One of the fundamental beliefs in the Conservative Party of Canada is the belief in the freedom of speech. I have given a first reading speech on Bill C-10 as well. It is a 30-year-old piece of legislation, so there are some things that need to be renewed. Members on all sides of the House agree legislation does have to be renewed and reviewed in a timely manner. There are some areas where we agree.
One of the things that just came forward is that in the updated legislation, the Liberals have taken out the part that would regulate individual content and now the CRTC would have the power to take down content from individuals. We have no way of knowing if any of the amendments that were passed address this issue because there was a gag order put on the amendments and we do not know what is involved with them all.
Like my colleague, the member for Yellowhead, said, there are 120 amendments to this piece of legislation and a quarter of those were brought forward by the government that introduced the bill in the first place.
We are rushing through this and the government has brought in time allocation so we cannot study this bill to its final conclusion. I was in the legislature of Saskatchewan for eight years and have been here for two years. I do not remember seeing any piece of legislation in my 10 years that had 120 amendments to it. On its own, that shows there were some issues early and often with this piece of legislation.
Talking about time allocation and the duty of this House, I know my colleagues and friends from across the way, as well as the member for Kingston and the Islands and a few other of my Liberal colleagues, talk about us playing political games. They say that Conservatives are trying to waste time and are using stall tactics.
As this bill has to do with freedom of speech, we did a little run down of what has been going on in a few of the other committees lately. At the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, the Liberals have been filibustering for 73 hours and for more than four months. At the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, the Liberals have been filibustering for 43 hours. That is a long time. At the Standing Committee on Finance, the Liberals have been filibustering for 35 hours. At the Standing Committee on National Defence, in its study looking into sexual misconduct in the military, the Liberals have filibustered for more than 16 hours and the Chair suspended unilaterally more than 23 times. That is impressive.
I know my colleagues in the Bloc bring up Mr. Harper and the disdain for Parliament. I do not know if Mr. Harper's government had a chair who unilaterally closed down debate 23 times.
The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs was filibustered for 10 hours over three months, February, March and April, to prevent a study into Canada taking from the COVAX vaccine supplies.
This august House is where we are supposed to have debate and be able to talk about different ideas, whether it be Liberal, Conservative, Bloc, NDP. Right now, we are going through a time when the government continues to say the opposition is holding up debate, when we can clearly see, in committees, that the Liberals are trying to stifle any dissent among opposition parties on what kind of bills they are trying to bring forward. I have not even mentioned that the government prorogued Parliament for months because of the WE scandal.
Now, we are here talking about Bill C-10, about stifling debate, and I have given 12 examples of how the government has stifled discussion and debate in committees and in the House of Commons, in Parliament.
When we talk about this, why are Conservatives so against Bill C-10? It is because we are hearing it from our constituents. People are scared. They see Bill C-10 as a very slippery slope of what could be in the future. Many people have come to my office wondering what their kids are going to be able to put on the Internet to express themselves in five years. Are they going to be able to have any free, independent thoughts? Are they going to be able to criticize the government, or is someone in the CRTC, the czar, going to be watching content on YouTube or Facebook or Twitter or Instagram or TikTok? Are they going to get a knock on the door or a call to take down their content because it does not agree with the government's position? That is what people are actually calling about and what their concern is.
People can groan and say, “Oh my, how is that possible?” We are here to represent the people of our ridings, not to carry the water for the government. That is another thing. The government members are acting like it is up to the opposition side to pass bills. We listen to the Minister of Finance saying it is time for the opposition to help them pass bills. When has it been the government asking this and saying it is the fault of the opposition that it is not getting its legislation through? That is like a teenager who went out partying the night before blaming her friends for not getting her homework done. It is not our responsibility to make sure that the government implements its agenda. It has never been the opposition's responsibility and it never will be. It is time that the government took responsibility for its own actions.
Possibly, the Liberals are not getting their legislative agenda through because they prorogued Parliament, because they filibustered committees again and again, and that is why legislation never got to third reading and never got to this House. At some point in time, a member of the government will have to stand up and say that maybe they are responsible for the games they are playing now with time allocation, especially in committee, where it has not been done in 20 years. That could be a fact as to why the Liberals are not getting their agenda through.
Finally, one other thing that makes people concerned about Liberals bringing forward legislation that would regulate their free speech is the fact that even if it is not going to be this bill, people just do not trust the current government. Members may not believe this, and I was shocked myself when I found out, but since 2015 there have been over 35 failed Liberal promises. If they wonder why people do not trust the government, it is because it does not keep its word.
This is from a long-serving Liberal in Saskatchewan, and this is really when we get into the psyche of a Liberal politician. I will never forget this. He said, “You know what it means when you break your promise? It means you won.” That is unbelievable, because if they win they are able to break their promises. It is something that will stick with me for as long as I serve in this chamber.
When it comes to Bill C-10, the Conservatives will continue to stand up for the average Canadians to make sure their voices are heard.
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Madam Speaker, the member talks about filibustering and antics in the House. I wonder where he was two Fridays ago when the Conservatives put up every roadblock they could to prevent us from getting to debate the bill on the ban on conversion therapy. They literally blew apart an entire Friday with their antics.
Last Thursday, the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes stood over there and for an hour and 45 minutes talked about train robberies in the 1800s.
The Conservatives are applauding it, Madam Speaker. They are applauding the fact that he filibustered for an hour and 45 minutes in the House to prevent us from getting legislation through and the member wonders why the government has to bring in program motions like this?
Warren Steinley Conservative Regina—Lewvan, SK
Madam Speaker, seeing as there is no relevance to that question, I will continue with my speech.
Included in the Liberal broken promises was the running of modest short-term deficits of less than $10 billion in each of the next two years; increased funding to Telefilm Canada and the National Film Board, with a new investment totalling $25 million. If Liberals had done that, maybe we would not be talking about this bill.
The Liberals said they would respect legal traditions and perspectives on environmental stewardship and reduce Canada's federal debt-to-GDP ratio each year. The Liberals blew past that one. The said that access to information applied to the Prime Minister's Office and ministers' offices as well administering institutions that supported Parliament and the courts. They did not even come close to keeping that promise.
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
Madam Speaker, when I was a kid, my grandfather used to say there was something screwy going on when a situation did not seem quite right. Well, there is something screwy going on today, because I am hearing the Conservatives blather on about freedom of expression.
Where is that freedom of expression when it is time to protect a woman's right to make choices about her own body? Where is that freedom of expression when we are talking about Bill C‑6 and people with a different sexual orientation?
The Conservatives seem to have a flexible interpretation of freedom of expression. I am not sure if my colleague would agree with that.
Warren Steinley Conservative Regina—Lewvan, SK
Absolutely, Madam Speaker, I am proud to be a Conservative and to sit on the Conservative side of the House, because it is the party that believes in freedom, the freedom of expression, the freedom of choice, the freedom to be whatever one can be. We will ensure the country stays on track and each generation has the same opportunity to succeed as the one before.
That is a ridiculous question because this party will always choose freedom and respect for individuals.
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Madam Speaker, my colleague spoke a lot about filibustering. I sat on the committee and listened to the Conservatives filibuster over and over again. At one of the meetings, the heavy hitters of the Conservative Party, the filibuster specialists, came to the meeting to share their filibustering with us.
I know that is their right and that is what they are able to do, but the concern I had is that the filibustering that happened meant the committee could not debate the amendments in public. We could not get to those amendments, the ones we wanted to talk about in public, amendments from the Conservatives, the Bloc, the NDP and the government that were so important to make this bill better. The Conservatives did not let us talk about them in committee.
Warren Steinley Conservative Regina—Lewvan, SK
Madam Speaker, I know the member for Edmonton Strathcona has worked hard on this file. A bill that is brought forward that 120 needs amendments as proposed by parties on all sides is a flawed bill and more work needs to be done it. The member is making my point that having a bill that flawed, with 120 amendments proposed, should not be passed. We should continue to debate it for at least another session or two.
Nelly Shin Conservative Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.
I would like to present today's speech based on the perspective I bring from my previous profession as an artist.
Being a professional artist, whether a composer or writer, is an extremely difficult vocation to pursue, attain and sustain. There is a huge gap between those who have talent but have not been able to get their big break, and those who have found stardom. Secure gigs as staff writers or contracts to long-term projects are limited and competitive, and most artists pursue other careers to pay their bills.
As a composer, I have been around creative people most of my life. Artists are dreamers with a lot of discipline with their art and tireless hope to find their rainbow's end. They give their best performances whether for a three-member audience at an open mike or at an outdoor concert with hundreds of listeners. Artists do not tire of doing their best and following their dreams, because they are driven by the love of creating and the dream of sharing their work with a captive audience. For most artists, it is a labour of love.
A talented artist gets their big break when they are discovered by a large enough following that will help their career become sustainable. That is why songwriters want their music to eventually make its way to radio, television and film, and writers want their stories on TV and the big screen. However, anyone who has navigated the entertainment industry knows that there are gatekeepers who ensure media platforms give precedence to major players and minimal opportunity to the small players. They also base their content on market reach and capital.
At the end of the day, we call them the arts, but they are a business that uses the arts for capital. I am speaking neither for nor against this. There is room for commerce and art to contribute to economic prosperity together. What I am concerned about is the inequity of opportunity when industry gatekeepers determine the culture of a nation because of their mass reach. It is not a level playing field for artists who have a lot of talent and simply want to express themselves without having to succumb to the matrix for marketability that large corporations define.
Broadcasters and artists continue to have a symbiotic relationship, but not all artists are welcome to participate in this symbiotic relationship. Having CanCon regulation is a good thing to the extent that it safeguards Canadian content, but in practice CanCon is applied by corporations to Canadians who have already found their success to a large degree and who fit the marketability matrix. Fortunately, with or without CanCon, Canadians artists are still rising to the top and I am pleased by the diversity of content that broadcasters are tapping into today. There has been progress.
The digital world turned the entertainment industry upside down. It allowed independents to enter the arena without having to pass through gatekeepers. With fewer CD and DVD sales, big-name entertainment corporations and independents turned to download sales, but download sales were hurt by pirated content. With the shift to online streaming, the revenue source for creative content producers has become fluid with the prominence of Internet usage. Now Canadian broadcasters are also threatened by foreign players, as foreign content enters the Canadian digital market.
In response, the government may have thought to update the Broadcasting Act by increasing discoverability for artists and levelling the competition for broadcasters, and voila: here is Bill C-10. Originally, Bill C-10 was supposed to level the playing field by regulating large online streaming services, such as Disney+, Netflix and Amazon, to meet Canadian content requirements, just as for Canadian radio and television stations.
Through the Broadcasting Act, the CRTC is given power to issue broadcast licences to allow radio and TV stations to operate, and to regulate broadcasting while meeting conditions on the kinds of programming they can air and community standards. A portion of their programs, often 20% to 40%, is allotted to be Canadian content, and broadcasters can also be mandated to pay licence fees and contributions to the Canada media fund: a federal agency that subsidizes Canadian television and film.
The update that Bill C-10 proposes is a new category of web media called “online undertakings”, which would give the CRTC the same power to regulate the web that it has for traditional TV and radio stations without having to apply for licences. It seems simple and straightforward, but there is a glitch that could turn this seemingly benevolent piece of legislation into a Trojan horse.
Bill C-10 defines web media as “an undertaking for the transmission or retransmission of programs over the Internet for reception by the public by means of broadcasting receiving apparatus”. This definition is so vague that it could include everything from Amazon Prime to anyone with a website or a podcast. Programs under the Broadcasting Act are defined to include images, audio or a combination, of which written text is not predominant. This would refer to podcasts, photos, videos and memes, but not the written content on news articles and posts. It could include everything from a multimillion dollar film produced for Netflix to a 15-second pet video on TikTok.
I was shocked to learn that, while Conservative heritage committee members proposed an amendment to Bill C-10 to set some safeguards to limit regulations to online undertakings with more than $50 million a year in revenue and 250,000 subscribers in Canada, which would apply only to large streaming services, the Liberals rejected it. That means that not only was the government aiming at big companies but also that broadcasting is now being used to control everyday Canadians.
Section 2.1 and section 4.1 were two exemptions in Bill C-10 for social media. Section 2.1 refers to users who upload onto social media platforms. Thus, the user would not be subject to conditions like Canadian content requirements or contributions to the Canada Media Fund, which the CRTC would impose.
That exemption remains on Bill C-10, but section 4.1 was taken out of the bill. It dealt with the programs that users upload on social media, indicating that the CRTC and the Broadcasting Act could not regulate programs that only consist of user-uploaded programs, but the Liberals removed that section in the bill.
In summary, section 2.1 regulates speakers, while section 4.1 regulates speech. With the deletion of 4.1, the CRTC can regulate the content uploaded on social media and also regulate the social media platforms that allow users to publish content, just as it regulates content licensed on regular traditional stations.
The Liberals keep telling Conservatives that 2.1 will safeguard users, but the absence of 4.1 removes a safeguard from content. Bill C-10 has expanded the powers of the CRTC and the Broadcasting Act to provide grounds for the CRTC to adopt regulations requiring social media sites such as YouTube to remove content it considers offensive and discoverability regulations that would make them alter the algorithms to determine which videos are seen, more or less. Violations for these regulations could be very high for the individual and the corporation. These are the details of concern. I take issue on the infringement of personal freedoms and freedom of expression of Canadians. Even the B.C. Library Trustees Association is saying it needs clause 4.1 back. These are librarians and libraries.
As I mentioned earlier in my speech, the gap between artists and their audience is discoverability, but if the discoverability is regulated through controlled algorithms, then it creates yet another barrier for artists. Why should the CRTC define what listeners should discover instead of allowing audiences to determine that for themselves? Why is the government trying to bring a barrier between artists and their audiences?
The minister keeps saying they want Canadians to tell their stories, but why is there a gap in the bill that would allow someone or an entity to determine which stories are to be discoverable? Artists have already faced an industry that was dominated by large companies to determine what was worthy of discovering and promoting through broadcasting giants, so why should the CRTC be given access to gatekeep discoverability?
The minister says he wants to protect the languages of minorities, but the minister should know that much of ethnic programming is created by underfunded, independent producers who never see any advertising money because it goes straight to the network. Where is the support these independent grassroots producers need? Again, the small players are left behind.
The minister says artists have said Conservatives are not supportive of them, but who is the minister speaking with? I do not think he has the numbers of small players on speed dial. Were they consulted for this bill? If any artist thinks that Conservatives are not supportive of artists, it is because the Liberals have created this wedge by refusing to reinstate 4.1. They are forcing Conservatives to bow for democracy, and we are the only ones who seem to be doing that. The Liberals have created a custody battle that I do not want to be a part of.
I want to support content, and I want to support our broadcasters, but why does it have to be a battle between choosing between them and democracy? We put forward a motion at committee calling for new charter statements to be provided, but the Liberals voted to shut it down.
I cannot help but wonder if the Liberals have an agenda for omitting 4.1. Artists who are still striving to find a rainbow are discriminated against and exploited. They face financial instability for following their hearts. Most will never get fully compensated for the investments they have made in their careers.
If the Liberals had simply fixed 4.1, I would not have my suspicions. The fact that they have not done something so simple with something that was originally there, makes me come to the conclusion that they are playing political games against Conservatives, at the expense of struggling artists.
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Madam Speaker, I get a real kick out of it when Conservatives come into the House and try to talk about the algorithms of Facebook and YouTube and the various other platforms out there. Algorithms are proprietary software that belong to the organizations or the businesses that are using them such as Facebook and YouTube.
To suggest that they know how an algorithm will be altered implies that they know how it currently runs, but the reality is that nobody does because we do not know how the algorithms are built to encourage people to look at certain content. Unless the member is saying that she does, in which case I would love for her to enlighten the House with that information.
Nelly Shin Conservative Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Madam Speaker, I would like to refer back to the whole concept of regulating. Regulations mean that they are imposing on the entity or the corporation they are regulating to respond in the way that they are being asked to. Of course, regardless of whether the algorithm is being controlled by that web giant or a platform like Facebook, or not, if the CRTC tells them to do certain things with algorithms, they they will.
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Madam Speaker, how is this possible?
At the beginning of her speech, my colleague said that she was an artist, a composer, so how can she not automatically be excited about the idea of promoting the talents of Canadian and Quebec artists? That is the purpose of Bill C‑10. The bill is designed to ensure that multinational digital corporations, the web giants, are subject to the same regulations that the traditional Canadian broadcasters have almost always been subject to. Bill C‑10 is good for artists and good for the cultural community.
I sincerely wonder why my hon. colleague does not support and embrace this bill, like the majority of Canadian artists do.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes
The hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam, a very short answer.
Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting ActGovernment Orders
Conservative
Nelly Shin Conservative Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Madam Speaker, I am very thrilled that the member has raised that issue because those are very important, but the dilemma I have with the bill is not that those things are not good, it is the fact of why are we having to fight for democracy when the bill should strictly be about things like that and helping artists—
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.
Warren Steinley Conservative Regina—Lewvan, SK
Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise during Adjournment Proceedings this morning, as it is 12:45 a.m., to talk about a question I asked the parliamentary secretary for finance about the reopening and how the country can start to have a reopening plan. Although he is quick-witted and really slick at spinning, he was more condescending than willing to answer my question. That is why I am now basically asking for a redo to ask another member of the Liberal Party about the plan to reopen.
It is not just Conservatives like me who are asking this question. The business council of business groups across Canada openly called for a reopening plan from the Prime Minister. There were 61 business groups across Canada that called for a plan to reopen the economy. It hinged on a few different ideas they had, but they stated:
...your government should collaborate with officials in the United States and other countries in setting benchmarks that would enable the easing of border restrictions and travel quarantines.
A clear and predictable plan for a gradual and safe return to a more normal life would instill public confidence while demonstrating concern for the physical, mental and economic health of Canadians. As business and community leaders we stand ready to work with you to ensure a safe and sustainable recovery.
Now I think everyone is beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel. When we brought a Conservative motion, I talked about having a reopening plan from the Government of Canada, and about the vacuum of leadership the current Prime Minister and the Liberal government have shown with respect to that. People are asking where the Prime Minister is and where the plan is to reopen.
I know we want to do it safely, but I would say to look no further than my home province of Saskatchewan, where I am ecstatic to say that if we reach our targets on June 20 we will have restrictions lifted by July 11. That means by July 11 in Saskatchewan we will have all restrictions lifted. There will be a return to normal life. That is really what all Canadians are hoping for. That is the question I want to talk about today. I hope everyone can have a Saskatchewan summer, where they can visit with their loved ones, have backyard barbecues and go to see the Riders win games at the Mosaic Stadium and Rider Nation can once again come together.
That is why I was asking the parliamentary secretary for finance when the federal government will take its leadership role. When will it bring a reopening plan? We know the CDC in America said if people have two doses they do not have to wear masks anymore or worry as much about social distancing. Is that what we are going to do in Canada? Have the Liberals had those conversations? What will happen when people get the second dose, when it is time to get their jab? I think that is what people are starting to ask and wonder about, what they are going to see when these vaccinations roll out, which are months behind.
Obviously, we know that the Liberals have failed on the vaccine rollout, but even a broken clock is right twice a day, so eventually we will get the vaccines and will have those two doses. What will that look like for individuals with respect to international travel and travelling to and from our friends across the border? Outfitters are asking this. Hotels are asking this. I spoke with the Regina Hotel Association. It cannot go another summer without clients. It would rather see clients in the door than programs and government cheques in the mail.
That is the question we are asking the government tonight.
Anita Vandenbeld LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to respond to the member opposite this early morning on such an important issue. It goes without saying that this period has been long and extremely challenging for Canadians. The COVID-19 pandemic has cost us dearly, with the loss of life and livelihoods. None of us has been untouched.
Now, with vaccination campaigns ramping up around the country, there is a sense of hope growing that we are nearing the end of this difficult experience. Like all Canadians, I look forward to putting the pandemic behind us, rebuilding the economy and returning to the activities that we enjoyed before COVID-19.
We have every reason to be hopeful, but we must also be vigilant. We are at a critical point in the pandemic, and we must temper our hope with caution as we begin to gradually ease restrictions. We need to stay the course with proven public health measures that have served us well so far. Canadians need to keep doing their part to protect themselves and each other. This means continuing to wear masks and limiting our interactions with other people. We also need to scale up testing and screening to identify new cases.
The Government of Canada is working with its partners in industry and the non-profit sector to increase testing and screening capacity across Canada to slow the spread of COVID-19. Rapid tests are an important front-line tool in the fight against COVID-19 that complement the use of polymerase chain reaction or PCR lab tests. A number of pilot projects have shown that rapid testing can help identify and stop the spread of COVID-19 in essential workplaces and congregate living settings. The Government of Canada is also committed to leading by example. We are currently working to expand rapid screening for essential workers in federal departments and agencies.
From the beginning, working closely with our partners has also been a key part of our public health approach in the fight against COVID-19. These partnerships, especially with the provinces and territories, continue to be essential as we prepare to restart the economy while keeping Canadians safe.
Last July, the government announced a $19 billion agreement with the provinces and territories. The safe restart agreement is designed to protect the health of Canadians, get people safely back to work and prepare for potential surges. Canadians are counting on us to see them safely through this final lap of the pandemic. We are determined to do just that, with careful planning, cautious action and a healthy respect for this dangerous virus.
At this point, we all know what to do to keep each other safe. I know we can do it for as long as it takes to see this pandemic through to the end.
Warren Steinley Conservative Regina—Lewvan, SK
Madam Speaker, I appreciate that response, but Canadians are doing whatever they are asked to keep each other safe.
I have one quick question for the parliamentary secretary. It is okay for the Prime Minister to fly across the world. It is okay for the Prime Minister to have masks and to hang out with his friends at the G7 without social distancing. It is okay for the Prime Minister to fly home and skip the quarantine hotel that every other Canadian has to use.
Why is there one set of rules for the Prime Minister and one set of rules for average Canadians? Could the parliamentary secretary answer that.
Anita Vandenbeld Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister has followed all public health rules. We know that with this pandemic, it has been a long road, but we are closer than we have ever been to turning the corner.
We have been waiting and preparing for this day for a very long time. We have invested to support provinces and territories in the fight against COVID through the safe restart agreements. We continue to work with the provinces and territories as well as industry and the non-profit sector to help keep people at work and safe with rapid testing.
Even as we look ahead to a more hopeful future, our focus continues to be the health and safety of Canadians. We must continue to practice public health measures and, for now, many restrictions must remain in place. If we move too quickly, we risk losing the progress that we have made.