Debates of Oct. 8th, 2025

Military Justice System Modernization Act

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I mentioned in my speech that there was a promise three years ago about that transfer, and more than half of the cases have not been transferred. We also need to question what would happen for processes that happen outside Canada as the bill relates only to offences happening within Canada. With the military police not investigating or prosecuting domestic offences, we must ask, will military police be trained and equipped to handle incidents abroad?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question relates to the culture of the Canadian Armed Forces tolerating sexual misconduct. The reports that are before us, by Arbour, Fish and Deschamps, all say that without changing the culture, the problem will not be solved.

Is the hon. colleague optimistic that Bill C-11 would push the Canadian Armed Forces to reform its conduct, which is the root of the problem?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, the biggest change we will need to discuss at committee is the appointment of a victim liaison officer. At this point, the appointment process would remain with the commanding officer, which is not the form of culture change we need to see. To support victims, who would be most impacted by this legislation, we need to make sure that support for them comes from outside of the system that keeps them victimized.

This reform has been a long time coming, with changes last being made in 1998. We need to make sure it does not take another 27 years before any unintended consequences can be corrected.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that my colleague would like some changes to be made to how things are handled abroad, outside Canada. Could she clarify whether the NDP intends to suggest amendments in this respect? If so, what kind of amendments would they be?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, we want to see amendments regarding investigations or incidents that happen abroad. As we know and as we have heard, even domestically some investigations have victims from one territory and witnesses from other provinces or even abroad. There should be better supports to ensure that these cross-jurisdictional issues can be streamlined.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to debate a bill that is very important for the military community and for Canadians, that is, Bill C‑11, the military justice system modernization act.

This bill will have a significant impact on members of the Canadian Armed Forces as well as veterans. Indeed, Bill C‑11 address the concerns that victims and survivors within Canada's military community have shared with us over the past few years. It includes a series of targeted amendments that aim to modernize the military justice system and strengthen support for victims and survivors.

The bill responds to recommendation 5 of the report from former Supreme Court justice Louise Arbour and the eight recommendations of the report from former Supreme Court justice Morris Fish. More specifically, the bill proposes to make six amendments. I will give a brief overview of all these amendments.

First, it will enshrine in law the fact that the Canadian Armed Forces no longer has jurisdiction over Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada. Second, it will enshrine in law that civilian authorities have exclusive jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada. Third, it establishes a victim's liaison officer, who will be available to victims throughout the transfer of cases, regardless of jurisdiction. Fourth, the bill seeks to strengthen the role of key positions in the justice system to make them more independent. Fifth, it seeks to address the historical discrimination faced by under-represented groups in how cases have been processed and transferred. Finally, the bill ensures that the military justice system remains aligned with the Criminal Code and the civilian justice system.

Our government takes the well-being of Canadian Armed Forces members very seriously. That is why we have worked hard in recent years to implement all 48 recommendations from former Justice Louise Arbour's report. More than 30 of those recommendations have already been implemented. By the end of the year, with the passage of this bill, I hope we will be able to say that not just 47 recommendations, but all 48 recommendations made by former Justice Arbour have been implemented.

I would like to provide an overview of Justice Arbour's recommendations. Three years ago now, Justice Arbour submitted her final report on sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces to the Minister of National Defence. This report, entitled “Report of the Independent External Comprehensive Review of the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces”, contains 48 recommendations that focused on reforming the “institutional shortcomings and structural impediments” that allowed the problem to persist.

In recommendation 48 of her report, Justice Arbour called for the Minister of National Defence to appoint an external monitor to oversee the implementation of the recommendations in the report and other external recommendations that she accepts. The external monitor, Jocelyne Therrien, shared her fifth report in July. Ms. Therrien emphasized that we are making progress and are on track to meet the intent of the 48 recommendations by the end of 2025.

Indeed, in our efforts to follow up on recommendations 1 and 2, we have made significant progress in clarifying definitions and terminology.

In June of last year, the defence team announced that policies using the term “sexual misconduct” would be updated to replace it with “harassment of a sexual nature”, “conduct deficiencies of a sexual nature” and “crimes of a sexual nature”. In addition, “sexual assault” will be separately defined in the relevant policies.

In March of this year, CAF adopted the Canada Labour Code definitions of harassment and violence, aligning its harassment and violence prevention program with the public service workplace harassment and violence prevention program. This resulted in a unified workplace harassment and violence prevention policy that applies to both National Defence public service employees and members of the Canadian Armed Forces.

This change also addressed recommendation 3 of Justice Louise Arbour's report. Members of the Canadian Armed Forces who experience or witness harassment or violence in the workplace now have a simplified incident reporting system, informal resolution mechanisms and a simplified investigation process.

We have also made progress in providing a range of relevant services and supports to victims. In response to recommendation 14 of Justice Arbour's report, the sexual misconduct support and resource centre has expanded its services to include a full-time legal resource responsible for providing information and assistance to victims of sexual misconduct in a military context. The next step will involve providing access to civilian lawyers able to contribute their assistance in different parts of the country at no cost to victims.

Bill C‑11 takes another step forward by improving support for victims and assigning exclusive jurisdiction to civilian authorities for investigating and prosecuting Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada. Our government remains steadfast in its ongoing commitment to addressing all forms of misconduct and unprofessional behaviour within the Canadian Armed Forces. It is imperative to ensure that victims and survivors receive the support and justice they deserve.

In conclusion, Canadian Armed Forces members are always there to ensure Canada's security and it is our duty to protect them from harassment and misconduct. The 48 recommendations made by former Supreme Court justice Louise Arbour clearly showed us the path to follow to change the culture of our institution, and the external auditor, Jocelyne Therrien, is ensuring that we respect this commitment, this new path.

In closing, I want to thank the members of the Canadian Armed Forces and the veterans for their service to Canada. I hope that all my colleagues in the House will support this bill so that we can ensure justice for victims of harassment and sexual misconduct.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the reports that are before us, those by Arbour, Fish and also Deschamps, all say that the problem with the Canadian Armed Forces around sexual misconduct will not be solved until the culture there is solved, a culture that has found sexual misconduct acceptable or at least tolerated in the context of the military setting.

Why is the member optimistic that Bill C-11 is finally the solution to that problem?

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have come to know my hon. colleague very well, and I know he takes these issues very seriously.

It is not a guarantee that the culture will change, but it is clear that we must take every step possible. One of the first things to do is assure victims of sexual harassment or misbehaviour that the system is not stacked against them. The way to do that, as we saw in the report by Madam Justice Arbour, is to take them out of the system where they could be seeking justice from their superiors or where those working on a file could be trying to pursue a case against a military superior. That does not lend confidence to the system, so it is important for victims to have an independent system, which is what they would be guaranteed by criminal courts outside of the military service. That is the first step, and it is one step that would go a long way to changing the culture in the military.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, one thing that is important to recognize in the debate is that the legislation would reinforce and put into law what has been happening for the last few years: Allegations of sexual assault and harassment are being transferred over to the civilian judicial system. Passing the legislation would ultimately be a significant step toward putting into law what we have attempted to put into practice. Hundreds of cases have already gone through the civilian justice system.

It is also important that we continue to work with our provincial and territorial stakeholders to ensure that the proper resources are in order. I am thinking specifically of the timing of charges and court proceedings.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important point the member for Winnipeg North raises in the House. Because the system has been in place and there has been action already on some of the reports that have been brought forward, which understand the scope and severity of the situation, these things have been acted on.

Now we are codifying this. Now we are making sure that the resources are put in place. Now we are making sure that training is provided and that our folks in the armed forces understand better how to transfer files to the civilian courts and provide support to the victims of sexual misconduct and harassment in our system.

These are very welcome changes, and it is wonderful to hear in the questions from different colleagues that there seems to be general support among members to make sure the bill gets to committee. I hope it becomes adopted as legislation before the end of the year.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government passed legislation allowing criminals convicted of sexual assault, including date rape, to serve their sentence under house arrest. Now the Liberals want Canadians to trust them with this new legislation. How can the Liberals be trusted to enact justice reforms to protect members of the Canadian Armed Forces against sexual misconduct, given their record of allowing sexual predators to serve their sentences at home?

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there are many elements to the premise of that question that I have some difficulty with, but there are two things that should give the hon. member some confidence. First of all, this legislation reflects directly the recommendations by former Supreme Court justices Louise Arbour and Morris Fish. Second, the member can take confidence in the fact that the person responsible for making sure the recommendations are being followed going forward, Madame Jocelyne Therrien, is following through on them. She can assure parliamentarians and, most importantly, members of our Canadian Armed Forces that these recommendations are being followed through on.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today we are talking about Bill C-11, the military justice system modernization act. The effect of the bill would be to remove the military court's jurisdiction to try offences of a sexual nature and move them to civilian courts, which would have exclusive jurisdiction.

Our proud Canadian Armed Forces has a deep-seated problem that the bill aims to tackle. This is not new information; it is something we have known about for a long time. Let me read what Justice Marie Deschamps said in her report 10 years ago, which was commissioned by the Conservative government at the time. It is a report on sexual misconduct and sexual harassment in the Canadian Armed Forces. She found “a disjunction...between the high professional standards established by the CAF’s policies on inappropriate sexual conduct...and the reality [on the other hand] experienced by many members day-to-day.”

In other words, everything looked good on paper, but in reality not so much; it was quite a different story. The judge heard from many witnesses and summarized some of the evidence in her report. That was 10 years ago. Here we are in 2025, finally acting on it. The Conservative Party has always supported all the recommendations of the Deschamps report, and it is a shame they have just not yet all been implemented.

Bill C-11 is before us now. Before I get into the details of the bill, the good, the bad and where improvements are required, I want to shed a positive light on our proud Canadian Armed Forces. We can be proud of our men and women in uniform. I want to share some examples of their great success stories.

In Operation Reassurance, Canada was serving as the framework nation for NATO's multinational battle group in Latvia, a key part of NATO's enhanced forward presence to deter aggression in eastern Europe. That is more important now than ever. Operation Unifier was Canada's military training mission supporting the armed forces in Ukraine. That is also very important at the moment. Of course, we also have Canada's participation in NORAD, the binational military partnership between Canada and the United States, still our best friend.

In all these missions, the Canadian Armed Forces has distinguished itself with high professional standards and effective performance and has gained the respect of our NATO partners. All of this has happened despite the fact that the Liberal government for the last 10 years has underfunded the Canadian Armed Forces and not met our NATO commitments. Our NATO partners are counting on us.

I want to take a moment to highlight some of the work that is being done in my local Conservative association, the group of volunteers at home that keeps me grounded and connected to my community. It also includes my advisers; they are currently working on a policy statement that they are hoping will advance all the way to the Conservative Party convention scheduled in Calgary for early next year. It is about funding the Canadian Armed Forces to meet our NATO requirements. I want to thank my team back home for working on this very important issue. I want to give a big shout-out to the current president, Reese Yearwood, and the past president, Wout Brouwer, both of whom have been working diligently on it.

I will now go back to Bill C-11. It is an enactment in response to two reports. I talked about the Deschamps report. There is also the Fish report of Mr. Justice Fish, from April 2021, which offers a sweeping critique of and reform road map for Canada's military justice system. The second report is by Louise Arbour from a year later, 2022. It delivers a scathing assessment of how the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces handle sexual misconduct and institutional accountability.

I will read a couple of quotes from each of the reports, because I think they are important. They are both very extensive reports. I did not read the whole of the reports, but I read big sections. I highlighted a couple of paragraphs to quote.

This is from Mr. Justice Fish's report:

My review has confirmed the factual findings of the Honourable Marie Deschamps, who in 2015 completed her independent review on sexual misconduct in the [Canadian Armed Forces]: the nature, extent and human cost of sexual misconduct in the CAF remain as debilitating, as rampant and as destructive in 2021 as they were in 2015.

Through all those years, there was not much improvement.

Louise Arbour writes, and this is a quote that really hit home for me:

The [Canadian Armed Forces] has a long history of recruiting among military families. I was quite struck to hear that many serving members of the CAF, including high-ranking officers, would not encourage their daughter(s) to enrol today. Indeed, the exposure of sexual misconduct in the CAF has caused as much damage as defeat in combat would have to demoralize the troops and shock Canadians.

We have a serious problem of misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces. It is long-standing. It is deeply entrenched in the culture. It is not easily resolved, because it is hard to change the culture of an organization.

That is exactly what Bill C-11 is attempting to do. We support it. The thinking is that taking the whole business of investigating and prosecuting crimes of a sexual nature out of the Canadian military justice system and putting it into the civilian justice system will encourage victims to report without fear of impeding their career advancement and without fear of being isolated by their peers or being labelled as troublemakers.

Will it work? It may. I hope so. It is hard to change the culture of an organization, which is the fundamental foundation of this problem.

This is what Judge Deschamps said about the Canadian Armed Forces' culture when it comes to sexual misbehaviour, noting the failure of earlier attempts to solve the problem.

This is what she said:

...cultural change is key. Without broad-scale cultural reform, policy change is unlikely to be effective. This requires the [Canadian Armed Forces] to address not only more serious incidents of sexual harassment and assault, but also low-level sexual harassment, such as the use of sexualized and demeaning language, which contributes to [a hostile] environment....

I would conclude from this that sending serious cases of sexual harassment to civilian courts is only the tip of the spear. There is a more fundamental problem that needs to be resolved.

Maybe a few high-profile cases will make a difference, as happened with General Vance, in terms of highlighting the problems. Maybe it will help, but this will not happen without full support from the leadership.

It is important to hear from leaders in the Canadian Armed Forces.

This is what General Jennie Carignan, current chief of the defence staff, has to say: “These reforms will enable our operational effectiveness and support a respectful culture that will ensure our institution continues to earn the trust of [Canadian Armed Forces] members and the Canadians we serve.”

If she is optimistic, I am hopeful that the bill would steer us in the right direction. There are deep-seated problems. I would point out that there have been attempts before. I am thinking of Operation Honour. We had been optimistic that it was going to get to the root of the problem. In the end, that program was abandoned because it was not taken seriously by the leadership or by the rank and file.

We support the bill's going to committee. I would hope that the chief of the defence staff will come there and give evidence. If I have the opportunity, I will ask her questions about how this is going to solve a deep-seated cultural problem.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑11 is essential. Members of the Canadian Armed Forces always show up to protect Canadians and their safety. We also have a duty to protect them from misconduct and harassment.

We heard from our colleagues today during our debates. I think we all agree on the importance of this bill. A number of these colleagues have said they would like the bill to be studied in committee.

First, I would like to ask my colleague whether he agrees that Bill C‑11 must be sent to committee as soon as possible so that it can become law by the end of the year or as soon as possible. If so, can he share his opinion with his party's leadership team to make that happen?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party members are signalling that we are in support of the bill. It has many problems. I do not think it goes far enough to solve the institutional problems in the Canadian Armed Forces, but it is a step in the right direction. I think it is going to be a very intensive study at committee. There are a lot of questions to ask. We will need to have a lot of witnesses appear before the committee and answer what I think they will find to be very challenging questions.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Mr. Speaker, how does my colleague explain the fact that we have always tolerated the absurd situation in which those responsible for adjudicating cases of potential misconduct in the military are the senior military officers themselves?

Does he consider this to be odd?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed odd, and that is exactly what this bill is trying to do: take the decision-making, investigation and prosecution out of the military justice system and put it into the civilian justice system, where it belongs. I recognize that there are problems with the civilian justice system, as a lot of my colleagues have pointed out, so this is not a silver bullet, but I think it would be a step in the right direction.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if my colleague can elaborate a bit on what the situation would look like for someone who committed an offence here in Canada but also committed the same offence overseas. I am wondering what that would look like and how this bill and the court system would handle it. Would it create a weird two-tier system that could be problematic for victims trying to receive proper justice?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very thoughtful question. Our focus always has to be on victims of crime, to make sure they get proper support and that they have a sense that justice is being done. The court system should not just be a legal system; it should be a justice system. It should do justice.

It is an interesting hypothetical the member put to us. One of the reasons that crimes abroad need to be investigated abroad is that our civil authorities would have a hard time with investigations. I can understand why that distinction is being made, but it certainly would create complexities.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is encouraging, in a sense, that the Conservatives support this piece of legislation. I am wondering if the member sees the benefit of having the bill go to committee at this stage. We would have much more time at committee to deal with it, as opposed to holding it up indefinitely. Maybe that would allow for more debate on Bill C-10 or another piece of legislation the Conservatives oppose.

Would the member not agree that the sooner this bill goes to committee, the more opportunity there would be for other bills, especially if we want it passed before the end of the year?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North often asks questions of that nature, saying, “Why not just hurry things through?” I think there is a big advantage, to members of Parliament and the people we represent, to debating important legislation like this in the chamber. If it had been hurried off to committee, I would not have had the opportunity to research it, learn more about it and speak to it, hopefully in a half-intelligent fashion.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to stand with the brave military personnel who have suffered from sexual misconduct within our Canadian Armed Forces. Their courage in coming forward has exposed systemic failures that have persisted for far too long, and these failures demand our unwavering attention and action.

Let me be clear from the very onset that Conservatives unequivocally support victims of sexual misconduct. We believe they deserve justice, transparency and a workplace free from harassment, discrimination and abuse of power. This is not a partisan issue; it is about honouring the service of the people in uniform and ensuring their safety and dignity.

However, while victims deserve justice, they have been let down time and again, not just by individuals but by the very government charged with protecting them. The Liberal government has had a full decade to address the issues but has repeatedly failed Canadians and members of our armed forces. We must ask, why should Canadians, especially those in uniform, trust the government?

We saw one glaring example when the former minister of national defence, Harjit Sajjan, was complicit in covering up the sexual misconduct allegations against the former chief of the defence staff, General Jonathan Vance. When Sajjan was presented with evidence, he refused to accept it. Not only that, but Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was also complicit in the cover-up for three long years. These were years of silence and inaction while victims waited for justice. Let us remember that the Justice Deschamps report commissioned under the previous Conservative government was delivered in 2015, with clear recommendations to tackle sexual misconduct, yet the Liberals sat on the report, leaving it to gather dust while the problems festered.

Fast-forward to years later, and what do we see? The government finally brings forward Bill C-11, but only after a decade of delaying and only when political cover became necessary. The bill, while containing some positive changes, raises more questions than it answers and introduces concerns about political interference that could further harm victims and service members alike.

National defence is not just about tanks, planes and ships; it is also about people, brave men and women, who put on the uniform every day to protect our country. They deserve respect and protection. We must invest not only in their equipment and training but also in creating a military culture free from harassment and misconduct. How can we expect a culture of accountability and readiness when the government continues to neglect funding, equipping and modernizing our military?

I will remind the House that the Royal Canadian Navy is operating decades-old warships well past their prime. Our Royal Canadian Air Force flies 40-year-old CF-18s that are past their operational life span, while the government has dithered with their replacement. The Canadian Army lacks basic resources, from personal protective equipment to modern artillery. There have been reports of soldiers buying their own equipment, and training has been cancelled due to budget cuts. Meanwhile, Canada remains well below NATO's 2% defence spending target.

As far as recruitment goes, the Canadian Armed Forces is facing a shortfall of 16,000 personnel.

The first responsibility of the federal government is the protection of Canada and those who serve us. We face a rapidly changing global threat environment, from Russia's invasion of Ukraine to the instability in the Middle East and growing tensions in the Indo-Pacific. Our military must be strong, prepared and respected, and this includes having a justice system that is fair and trusted.

Conservatives fully support transferring jurisdiction of most sexual offences committed in Canada from the military justice system to civilian authorities, as has been recommended by the respected Deschamps, Arbour and Fish reports.

Unfortunately, this is not the reality. Our civilian courts are under-resourced and overwhelmed. Court delays are rampant, and victims of sexual assault often see their cases dismissed or delayed under the Jordan principle, which forces charges to be stayed if trials are not held in a reasonable time frame. This means adding further trauma and uncertainty to survivors. According to testimony heard at the status of women committee, only a tiny fraction of reported sexual assault cases ever lead to convictions. Even then, penalties are minimal.

Victims deserve justice free of political gamesmanship, and the accused deserve a fair and impartial process.

Let me remind the House about the handling of Jonathan Vance's case. Despite credible allegations, the government gave Vance a raise while investigating his wrongdoing. It was a clear signal to victims that their suffering was secondary to political expediency. Moreover, the defence committee, which should have been a forum for accountability, was suspended for months amid Liberal filibustering, preventing proper oversight and investigation.

The government's pattern of delay, of denial, of shielding high-ranking officials and of stalling justice cannot be ignored. We have heart-wrenching testimony from survivors describing gang rape, sexual violations and the pervasive culture of silence within the military. They have waited years for reforms that have only just now been proposed. Bill C-11 may be a step forward, but it is long overdue and still incomplete. Victims deserve better than being used as political pawns.

Conservatives call on the government to finally take responsibility, implement meaningful changes now, ensure the civilian justice system is fully resourced to handle these cases, protect victims from further trauma and provide them with real justice.

To those who have suffered, we see them and we hear them. We stand with them. However, to those who have allowed this problem to persist for a decade with political games and cover-ups, the time for excuses is over. Our national security depends not only on weapons and strategy, but on the moral strength of our institutions. We owe it to every man and woman in uniform to uphold justice, integrity and respect.

Conservatives will continue to hold the government accountable for its failures and push for real reforms that serve victims, respect due process and restore trust in our Canadian Armed Forces.

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

Canadian Heritage

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege to rise in this House once again and ask the government a question that it has not been all that forthright in answering: What, precisely, are its plans when it comes to its long-standing desire to censor what Canadians see, say and do on the Internet?

Not that long ago in this House, I asked the Minister of Canadian Identity what he was planning to do. Actually, I asked him if he would cop to the fact that he was the minister tasked with online censorship, given that there seemed to be some doubt and some examples of Liberal ministers clamouring over precisely who got to take up that honour.

I need to give a bit of a history lesson for those who have not been following this. For the last two Parliaments, the Liberals have tried to bring in draconian online censorship bills. They tried it in the 43rd Parliament and failed; they tried it in the 44th Parliament and failed. Now, both the justice minister and the Minister of Canadian Identity have said that this still remains a very live priority.

When it comes to online censorship, the Liberals are saying, “If at first you don't succeed, try, try again.” What Canadians are saying is to take the loss and sit down. Canadians do not want the government to regulate online speech; they do not trust the government to do it.

We are already seeing with Bill C-9 that the Liberals reduced the threshold of what constitutes hate speech. We have seen them, in that bill, water down a definition that has been working in criminal law in Canada.

Bill C-63 in the most recent Parliament, the online harms act, went far beyond this. Bill C-63 would empower the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to prosecute Canadians for saying things that offended people online. The Liberals were bringing back a much maligned and, I am grateful to say, formerly repealed section of the Canadian Human Rights Act, section 13. That is what is at issue when we talk about so-called “online harms.”

I have no doubt that tonight the parliamentary secretary to the minister will talk about all the examples of why this is so necessary, but the reality is that condemnation of the Liberal government's online harms proposals has come from left and right. It has come from civil liberties groups on the left and right, and it has come from Canadian luminaries such as Margaret Atwood, who I do not believe would ever align herself with those of us on this side of the bench, because Canadian free speech advocates, Canadian artists, scholars and journalists all realize the importance of being able to speak one's mind without the government weaponizing a definition of hate to censor what Canadians do.

I bring this up now because when I asked the minister the first time around, he started talking about Google trying to give money to pacify the government when it comes to local journalism initiatives. The minister was mixing up the many online censorship bills the Liberal government has put forward. I realize there have been a lot of them; it is tough to keep on top of them. I was not asking him about Bill C-11, which forced the government to mandate YouTube algorithms and streaming. I was not talking about Bill C-18, which the government used to ultimately pull local news and all journalism off the Facebook and Instagram platforms in Canada. I was talking specifically about online harms, a term that the government uses to cloak what it is doing in something that may make someone who does not pay attention to these issues feel that it is a good thing. In reality, it has no other objective but to reduce what is acceptable and permissible in the bounds of debate and free society.

I am asking the government, once and for all, will it commit to taking its so-called online harms censorship bill out of the playbook and not censor what Canadians say and do online?

[Madeleine Chenette, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture and Minister responsible for Official Languages and to the Secretary of State (Sport)]

Mr. Speaker, I want to reassure Canadians that they are absolutely right to trust our Liberal government to protect their rights.

Bill C‑11 modernized the Broadcasting Act to ensure that digital platforms, which play such an important role in how Canadians get their music and stories online, contribute fairly to supporting Canadian content. This bill in no way gave the government control over YouTube algorithms.

In fact, our government asked the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, not to impose regulatory requirements on online broadcasters for content by social media creators, including podcasts.

Even though my colleague does not see the connection with Bill C‑11 and Bill C‑18, I will explain them. Bill C‑11 also requires the CRTC to regulate the broadcasting system in a manner consistent with the freedom of expression enjoyed by users of social media services.

It is the same concern with freedom of expression that motivates Bill C-18's requirement that tech giants that act as gatekeepers of online news must negotiate fairly with the new businesses that inform Canadians. News outlets play a vital role in maintaining a healthy democracy.

The Online News Act was passed in December 2023 to support Canada's news sector and ensure that Canadians have access to reliable news and journalism. It aims to ensure that dominant platforms like Google and Facebook compensate new organizations when their content is made available on their services.

Google actively participated in the regulatory process and agreed to make an annual financial contribution of $100 million, indexed to inflation, to support the Canadian information ecosystem.

To date, more than $48 million was paid out to 231 news publishers, including small local and independent media outlets.

Unfortunately, even if OECD members have engaged with these platforms, they are still not accountable or transparent regarding how harmful content is managed, and that is the point. We know that social media platforms are being used to threaten, intimidate, bully and harass people. They are being used to promote racist, anti-Semitic, Islamophobic, misogynist and homophobic views that target communities, put people's safety at risk and undermine Canada's social cohesion and our democracy. Social media platforms are also used by predators and offenders to exploit children.

Conservatives like to pretend that any attempt at addressing online harms is an affront to freedom, yet we know for a fact that four in 10 Canadians are exposed to online hate on a monthly or weekly basis. Conservative politicians need to stop hiding behind false outrage and join us in ensuring that Canadians feel safe in their communities.

Our Liberal government campaigned on a clear commitment to introduce legislation to protect children from horrific crimes, including online sexploitation and extortion, and give law enforcement and prosecutors the tools to stop these crimes and bring predators to justice. Canadians elected us to deliver on that.

Our Minister of Justice recently introduced the bill to combat hate, a legislative measure aimed at combatting the rise of hate by strengthening measures against hate crimes, intimidation, and obstruction.

We will never compromise Canadians' ability to express themselves online.