Debates of March 19th, 2024

Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, everybody knows perfectly well that the Liberal government is currently making money by collecting the carbon tax. What I mean by that is that none of this money is being set aside for the environment. However, the oil companies are still alive and well in Canada. Is the government doing one thing and saying another?

I would like the member to explain exactly what his government is doing.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, there is a comprehensive climate plan. It touches on many different areas. The price on pollution is responsible for a huge number of emission reductions when we look at the plan up to 2030, and it is responsible for between 23% and 30% of the overall plan.

If we were to axe the tax, it would cost a lot to replace those significant emission reductions. That is if, on a threshold question, someone cared. If they do not care, then they should be honest about it and say they do not care.

As to what we are doing otherwise, there are many different things. There are investments in public transit. There are investments in clean tech. There are rules on methane emissions. Yes, there are rules forthcoming, regulations that are being debated right now, around an emissions cap on oil and gas.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member on his speech, which had the added bonus of agitating the Conservatives.

The simple question I have is on the PBO's economic analysis. Does he include the ever-increasing cost of insurance for floods and fire?

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question because the answer is no. In fact, the Financial Times had an article the other day that said that insurance premiums are a hidden carbon price and that we are going to pay for climate action one way or the other.

What I would put to my Conservative friends is, if we are going to pay one way or the other, surely we want to harness the power of the free market and pay as little as we possibly can.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, a recent report shows that the NDP-Liberals are going to hike their carbon tax by 23% on April 1, even though it does not work.

Canada's environment commissioner says the NDP-Liberals are nowhere near on track to hit their emissions reduction targets and are relying on “overly optimistic assumptions, limited analysis of uncertainties and a lack of peer review.” In fact the NDP-Liberals do not even bother to measure if the carbon tax is working.

That is because the NDP-Liberals are increasing their ineffective tax, instead of doing things like fixing Canada's broken and overtaxed electric grid or getting more public transit built. Gas prices are rising and Canadians cannot afford to drive or heat their homes. It is all because of a tax that does not work. This NDP-Liberal tax is not worth the cost. It is time to spike the hike and axe the tax.

It is going to be a cruel summer for Canadians because the NDP-Liberals are hiking the carbon tax on food, heat and groceries by a whopping 23% on April 1. Any summer road trips that struggling Canadians might be dreaming about will probably become completely unaffordable because gas prices are about to spike, thanks to the NDP-Liberal tax hikes. Experts say a recent increase in the cost of gas in the GTA might be only the beginning of price hikes at the pumps this summer, with some estimating that the Liberal-NDP tax hike will be part of the reason for a forecasted 20¢ a litre increase by July 1.

Canadians deserve to be able to afford to live. They deserve that road trip. They do not deserve more NDP-Liberal taxes. It is time to axe the tax.

If someone took $2,000 from someone else and gave them $1,500 back, they would not say thank you. They would say, “Call the cops.” However, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Canada's top budget watchdog, shows that is exactly what is happening to Canadians. The NDP-Liberals' sneaky carbon tax scam takes thousands of dollars from Canadians and only gives them a few hundred dollars back, all while increasing the cost of everything, food, fuel and more, and the NDP-Liberal government expects to be thanked for this.

It gets worse. On April 1, the NDP-Liberals want to hike their tax by 23%. Canadians will not say thank you to the NDP-Liberals for taking their cash. They are going to give them the boot. It is time to spike the hike and axe the tax.

According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Canada's top budget watchdog, the average Alberta family will pay $2,466 for the Liberal-NDP carbon tax and only get $1,750 back. That means that the NDP-Liberal carbon tax will cost them $710 today, rising to a whopping $3,000 by 2030. Where does the Liberal-NDP Prime Minister expect struggling Albertans to find an extra $3,000 to pay for a tax that does not even work?

Life has never been more expensive and people are struggling. Canadians are looking for relief, not more tax. This NDP-Liberal tax is not worth the cost. It is time to spike the hike and axe the tax.

According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the average Ontario family will pay $1,363 for the NDP-Liberal carbon tax and only get $885 back. This means that the NDP-Liberal carbon tax will take nearly $500 from Ontarians this year, rising to a whopping $1,800 by 2030. Where does the NDP-Liberal Prime Minister expect that struggling Ontarians will find an extra $1,800 for a tax that does not even work?

Under the NDP-Liberals, life has never been more expensive and people are struggling. The dream of owning a home has disappeared. Canadians are looking for relief, not more tax. This NDP-Liberal tax is not worth the cost. It is time to spike the hike and axe the tax.

According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the average Nova Scotian family will pay $1,039 for the NDP-Liberal carbon tax and only get about $600 back. That means the NDP-Liberals take about $430 out of the pockets of people in that province today, rising to a whopping $1,500 by 2030. Where does the NDP-Liberal Prime Minister expect struggling Nova Scotians to find an extra $1,500 for a tax that does not even work?

Under the NDP-Liberals, life has never been more expensive and people are struggling. Canadians are looking for relief, not more tax. This NDP-Liberal tax is not worth the cost. It is time to spike the hike and axe the tax.

A new report shows that the average family's grocery bills will go up another $700 this year alone. Canada's food price report estimates that the annual grocery bill for a family of four in Canada will hit a whopping $16,297 this year, an increase of over $700, but it gets worse. On April 1, the NDP-Liberals are going to raise their carbon tax, a tax on everything including food, by 23%. No one can afford that. That is why food bank usage is at record levels across Canada. This NDP-Liberal tax is not worth the cost. It is time to spike the hike and axe the tax.

A new report shows that a 600% increase in food bank usage has occurred within Canada's university students, but there is even more bad news for struggling students. At a time when Canadian students cannot even afford ramen noodles, NDP-Liberals are going to raise their carbon tax, the tax on everything including food, by a whopping 23%. The NDP-Liberals have made it completely unaffordable for today's Canadian university students to ever hope to afford a home of their own, and now they have the audacity to raise the carbon tax on everything by 23%.

This insanity has to end. Canadian students deserve better than food bank ramen noodles and a carbon tax. This NDP-Liberal tax is not worth the cost. It is time to spike the hike and axe the tax.

Would members spend four minutes alone with Canada's Liberal Prime Minister? Probably not, but recently he said that if Canadians would spend four minutes alone with him, then they would understand how awesome his carbon tax on everything is. Canadians do not need quality time with the Liberal Prime Minister to understand how much the NDP-Liberal carbon tax costs them. That is because they cannot afford food, fuel or rent. They are using food banks. They are losing their homes.

Now the NDP-Liberals are going to hike their carbon tax by 23% on April 1. No time alone with the Liberal Prime Minister will change the fact that the Parliamentary Budget Officer said that the NDP-Liberal carbon tax will cost some Canadians almost $3,000 a year. Canadians do not need time alone with the Prime Minister. They need tax relief. This NDP-Liberal tax is not worth the cost. It is time to spike the hike and axe the tax.

People say that we cannot make a silk purse out of a pig's ear, but the Liberals sure think we can. The NDP-Liberals have announced that they are going to do an expensive rebrand of their unpopular carbon tax and make Canadians pay for it, instead of axing it. Can members believe that?

The NDP-Liberals know it is a terrible policy that is costing Canadians more. They know it does not work, and they know Canadians hate it. However, unlike the NDP-Liberals, Canadians cannot simply rebrand their rising bills away. The carbon tax is increasing the cost of the food they buy, the gas they put in their cars and the necessities they purchase at the store, and on April 1, the NDP-Liberals are going to hike that tax by 23%.

Life has never been more expensive and people are struggling. They are looking for relief. The NDP-Liberal tax is not worth the cost. It is time to spike the hike and axe the tax.

After eight years of the Prime Minister, people are worse off than they were eight years ago. They are looking for hope, but the Prime Minister is looking to take more money from them while people are struggling to pay their bills. Instead of giving them that hope, the NDP-Liberals are giving them a tax hike. Their carbon tax hike is going to make everything cost more. That trip to the grocery store this spring will cost more. Filling up their car with gas on their way home from work will cost more. Keeping their house warm and the lights on will cost more. That is what the NDP-Liberals are asking Canadians for all the time: more. All the while, Canadians are getting less and less.

I have news for the NDP-Liberals. Canadians do not have more to give. They do not have a little more. They do not have a bit more. They do not have any more. Canadians have had enough. They cannot afford the Prime Minister and they know he is not worth the cost, just like his costly tax, which it is time to axe.

If members had to choose between paying for a Disney+ subscription or an NDP-Liberal carbon tax increase, what would they pick? Canada's Liberal finance minister had a big old fail on that front when she told Canadians who are struggling to make ends meet that they should cut that Disney+ subscription, even though she is increasing the NDP-Liberal carbon tax by a whopping 23% on April 1.

Time and time again, the government has shown it has no clue how hard it is for regular people to pay for basic necessities like food, rent and fuel. Life is unaffordable and Canadians are tired of being told they have to give more and more to the NDP-Liberals and get less and less out of their lives. It is time to spike the hike and axe the tax.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can certainly comprehend this argument that the cost of the carbon tax is going to be passed on to consumers and this is inflationary. It is a good story that the opposition is trying to sell. The problem is that it does not seem to be true or, at least, a lot of experts seem to think that the carbon tax—

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to check. I do not think the member is wearing a tie.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Actually, I checked before he got up. He is wearing a tie.

The hon. member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, the experts seem to think the carbon tax only minimally contributes to inflation. Let me quote a few of those experts.

The Governor of the Bank of Canada in September came to the conclusion that the carbon tax only contributes 0.15% to the inflation rate. In a recent review in Policy Options, a couple of Alberta economists calculated that the carbon tax increased consumer prices by only 0.6% in the last eight years. Stats Canada, in a B.C. study, estimated that the carbon tax only contributed or increased the cost of food by 0.33%.

Where are their statistics from? I quoted some. I would like to hear from the opposition. Where are they getting their stats from?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as to experts, the Parliamentary Budget Officer says the average Ontario family, where the member's riding is, will pay $1,363 for their carbon tax and only get $885 back. That means that, by 2030, a family in his riding will pay a whopping $1,800 for their carbon tax. Eighteen hundred dollars contributes a lot to a family of four. It is not a minimal amount.

It is time to axe the tax and spike the hike.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Calgary Nose Hill knows that I certainly agree with the need to address affordability issues for folks across the country, in her community and in mine. I believe that she is sincere in her interest in doing so. I know she would not feel that the rebates are sufficient when it comes to the price on pollution.

I would like to hear from her, though, about this. When it comes to addressing affordability, she knows, as do I, that the profits of the oil and gas industry have gone up astronomically over the last year. In fact, it was 18¢ a litre, an increase in profits from 24¢ to some 40-odd cents last year. There are no rebates attached to that gouging at the pump.

Would she not agree that more needs to be done to address affordability by looking at those excess profits and redirecting those to help Canadians afford day-to-day life?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is a cold, natural resource-based country that does not have major public transit options for many Canadians across the country. In fact, we do not even have an electric grid that works to plug electric cars in, so it is insane to increase a carbon tax that does not work, that does not meet Canada's emissions targets and that makes Canadians broke.

It is time to axe the tax and spike the hike.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a number of years ago, a former climate change minister said that, if someone repeats a lie often enough, people will believe that it is true. All through this discussion we have been hearing that Canadians get more from the carbon tax rebate than they pay in taxes. I keep on hearing that over and over again.

Can the member tell us how it is that Canadians can get more back, especially considering the bureaucrats have to crunch through and get their 15% off the top?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for spiking the hike and axing the tax on that question. She knows that Canadians are struggling to make ends meet. They are going to food banks to get food. They cannot put fuel in their cars, never mind trying to save for an unaffordable home. That is why it is absolutely crazy to take the government's word. The government wants to be thanked for increasing a carbon tax that does not work.

Over two-thirds of Canadians know that it is time to spike the hike and axe the tax.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I simply had to rise.

I just heard my colleague talk about lying. I would like to hear them. Right now, it is the Conservatives who are spreading disinformation.

Once again, they tried to say that the carbon tax applies in Quebec, but it does not. We have a system that acts as an economic lever with markets as big as California, the state of Washington and many others. In Quebec, it is an economic lever.

The Conservatives can say it until they are blue in the face, but it does not apply in Quebec.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, many people across Quebec are struggling with rising rents, rising costs of food and lower standards of living. Part of that is also higher prices to fill their cars. A carbon tax does not make life more affordable. Conservatives will axe the tax and spike the hike.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Calgary Nose Hill for so eloquently reminding Canadians that common-sense Conservatives would spike the hike and axe the tax every step of the way.

Ronald Reagan once said, “When a business or an individual spends more than it makes, it goes bankrupt. When government does it, it sends you the bill. And...the bill comes in two ways: higher taxes and inflation. Make no mistake about it, inflation is a tax and not by accident.”

After eight years of the Liberal-NDP government, Canadians are left with that bill, when they got 40-year highs in inflation due to the current government's doubling of the debt, which was supported by the NDP, that led to the most rapid interest rate hikes seen in Canadian history, and it is only getting worse. That also led to the doubling of rents and the doubling of mortgages. Now, it takes 25 years just to save up for a down payment on a house, when just before the current Prime Minister, one could pay off a mortgage in 25 years. That is what happens when we have a fiscally irresponsible Liberal-NDP government.

After eight years, more is going toward shelter costs off the hard-working Canadians' paycheques than ever before. In some cases now, because of the government's uncontrolled spending, it can be 60% to 80% off Canadians' paycheques every single month going into just housing costs. That is why today we are seeing students living under bridges and people with good-paying jobs having to live in their cars.

Now, more than ever, people are going into food banks. In some cases, double-income-earning families are going into food banks because they cannot afford the cost of gas, groceries and home heating going up day by day because of this carbon tax scam. Groceries will be up another $700 this year because the Liberal-NDP government is going to tax the farmers, the transporters and the retailers. What they do not understand is that at the end of the day, all those costs get passed down to the Canadians who are buying the food. Now, at food banks, we see empty shelves and long lineups. In fact, the lineups have now become so bad that the police have had to intervene, helping to hand out food and to control some of those lineups.

This is after eight years of the Liberal-NDP government. Many newcomers came to this country with the promise of the Canadian dream that they could afford a home, could afford to buy groceries and could have a safe future, but after eight years of the Liberal-NDP government, life has never cost so much. There is crime, chaos and disorder all over the streets, and the dream of home ownership is dead, especially for nine out of 10 young people, who will never be able to afford a home because of the current government's out-of-control spending.

In fact, this carbon tax scam does not give more back than what Canadians have to pay into it. That was proven by the Parliamentary Budget Officer in his reports, and yesterday, when he came to committee, he proved again that Canadians are poorer because of the carbon tax scam. In fact, the Governor of the Bank of Canada, on multiple occasions, proved that axing the tax would put a massive dent in the inflationary crisis we see today.

Of the current inflation number, 0.6 would be taken off overnight. For hard-working, struggling Canadians today, that means the Governor of the Bank of Canada could start lowering those interest rates sooner, which means interest rates for mortgages could go down and rents could go down. However, with the continuous spending and the ideological obsession with making sure they cause economic pain with no environmental gain by the Liberal-NDP government, Canadians do not see a hope for gas, groceries and fuel prices to come down. That is unfortunate.

There are two million Canadians going into food banks in a single month, and this year alone, a million more will go because of the cost of food. The Liberal-NDP government will do nothing to help that and will cause more pain to hard-working Canadians.

Of the newcomers, 84% say that they do not even know why they came here. That Canadian dream is a nightmare to them now. The hope of owning a home and the hope of having a safe future for their kids are gone, and on top of that, they cannot afford groceries. There are moms we hear about who are rationing their food and who are making sure their kids are fed but are having to starve themselves. I have been to those food banks where I have seen this happen.

In fact, when we talk about no environmental gain and all the economic pain, we do not have to look further than Alberta. The Liberal government says that people get more back in these phony rebates. On average, an Albertan family will pay $2,900 into the carbon tax scam. The rebate is $2,000. There is a Liberal math joke in there somewhere because the numbers do not add up.

I remember the first time I ran for federal office. It was in 2019, and I went to the door of a single mom in a corner house with a for sale sign on it. I will never forget that conversation. I went to the door. I told her who I was and what our plan was. She told me to hang on and ran to get her Direct Energy bill. With tears in her eyes, she said that she had a for sale sign on her house because she used to work in oil and gas. She was a single mom and was laid off from her job, so she had to sell her house in order to feed her kids and to just survive. It was because of the anti-energy, anti-Alberta agenda of the Liberal-NDP government that she was laid off from her job.

She then showed me her Direct Energy bill and asked me what the carbon tax was. She had always heated her home, and she questioned why she was being punished for doing something she had always done. She could barely feed her kids, and they were just taking more and more money from her. That is exactly what the carbon tax scam is. It is more pain for everyday Canadians, with no environmental gains. The Liberal-NDP government's own environment department says it does not even track how many emissions go down because they cannot. It is a scam. It has been a scam all along.

Common-sense Conservatives will address the cost-of-living crisis by axing the tax, building the homes, fixing the budget and stopping the crime. In the meantime, we are going to continue to call on the ideologically obsessed, carbon tax-obsessed Liberal-NDP government to axe the tax, scrap the scam and spike the hike.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

It being 5:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I ask for a recorded division.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, March 20, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

Alleged Premature Disclosure of Bill C-63

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to respond to a question of privilege raised by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle on February 26 regarding the alleged premature disclosure of the content of Bill C-63, the online harms act.

I would like to begin by stating that the member is incorrect in asserting that there has been a leak of the legislation, and I will outline a comprehensive process of consultation and information being in the public domain on this issue long before the bill was placed on notice.

Online harms legislation is something that the government has been talking about for years. In 2015, the government promised to make ministerial mandate letters public, a significant departure from the secrecy around those key policy commitment documents from previous governments. As a result of the publication of the mandate letters, reporters are able to use the language from these letters to try to telegraph what the government bill on notice may contain.

In the 2021 Liberal election platform entitled “Forward. For Everyone.”, the party committed to the following:

Introduce legislation within its first 100 days to combat serious forms of harmful online content, specifically hate speech, terrorist content, content that incites violence, child sexual abuse material and the non-consensual distribution of intimate images. This would make sure that social media platforms and other online services are held accountable for the content that they host. Our legislation will recognize the importance of freedom of expression for all Canadians and will take a balanced and targeted approach to tackle extreme and harmful speech.

Strengthen the Canada Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code to more effectively combat online hate.

The December 16, 2021, mandate letter from the Prime Minister to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada asked the minister to achieve results for Canadians by delivering on the following commitment:

Continue efforts with the Minister of Canadian Heritage to develop and introduce legislation as soon as possible to combat serious forms of harmful online content to protect Canadians and hold social media platforms and other online services accountable for the content they host, including by strengthening the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code to more effectively combat online hate and reintroduce measures to strengthen hate speech provisions, including the re-enactment of the former Section 13 provision. This legislation should be reflective of the feedback received during the recent consultations.

Furthermore, the December 16, 2021, mandate letter from the Prime Minister to the Minister of Canadian Heritage also asked the minister to achieve results for Canadians by delivering on the following commitment:

Continue efforts with the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada to develop and introduce legislation as soon as possible to combat serious forms of harmful online content to protect Canadians and hold social media platforms and other online services accountable for the content they host. This legislation should be reflective of the feedback received during the recent consultations.

As we can see, the government publicly stated its intention to move ahead with online harms legislation, provided information on its plan and consulted widely on the proposal long before any bill was placed on the Notice Paper.

I will now draw to the attention of the House just how broadly the government has consulted on proposed online harms legislation.

Firstly, with regard to online consultations, from July 29 to September 25, 2021, the government published a proposed approach to address harmful content online for consultation and feedback. Two documents were presented for consultation: a discussion guide that summarized and outlined an overall approach, and a technical paper that summarized drafting instructions that could inform legislation.

I think it is worth repeating here that the government published a technical paper with the proposed framework for this legislation back in July 2021. This technical paper outlined the categories of proposed regulated harmful content; it addressed the establishment of a digital safety commissioner, a digital safety commission, regulatory powers and enforcement, etc.

Second is the round table on online safety. From July to November 2022, the Minister of Canadian Heritage conducted 19 virtual and in-person round tables across the country on the key elements of a legislative and regulatory framework on online safety. Virtual sessions were also held on the following topics: anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, anti-Black racism, anti-Asian racism, women and gender-based violence, and the tech industry.

Participants received an information document in advance of each session to prepare for the discussion. This document sought comments on the advice from the expert advisory group on online safety, which concluded its meetings on June 10. The feedback gathered from participants touched upon several key areas related to online safety.

Third is the citizens' assembly on democratic expression. The Department of Canadian Heritage, through the digital citizen initiative, is providing financial support to the Public Policy Forum's digital democracy project, which brings together academics, civil society and policy professionals to support research and policy development on disinformation and online harms. One component of this multi-year project is an annual citizens' assembly on democratic expression, which considers the impacts of digital technologies on Canadian society.

The assembly took place between June 15 and 19, 2023, in Ottawa, and focused on online safety. Participants heard views from a representative group of citizens on the core elements of a successful legislative and regulatory framework for online safety.

Furthermore, in March 2022, the government established an expert advisory group on online safety, mandated to provide advice to the Minister of Canadian Heritage on how to design the legislative and regulatory framework to address harmful content online and how to best incorporate the feedback received during the national consultation held from July to September 2021.

The expert advisory group, composed of 12 individuals, participated in 10 weekly workshops on the components of a legislative and regulatory framework for online safety. These included an introductory workshop and a summary concluding workshop.

The government undertook its work with the expert advisory group in an open and transparent manner. A Government of Canada web page, entitled “The Government's commitment to address online safety”, has been online for more than a year. It outlines all of this in great detail.

I now want to address the specific areas that the opposition House leader raised in his intervention. The member pointed to a quote from a CBC report referencing the intention to create a new regulator that would hold online platforms accountable for harmful content they host. The same website that I just referenced states the following: “The Government of Canada is committed to putting in place a transparent and accountable regulatory framework for online safety in Canada. Now, more than ever, online services must be held responsible for addressing harmful content on their platforms and creating a safe online space that protects all Canadians.”

Again, this website has been online for more than a year, long before the bill was actually placed on notice. The creation of a regulator to hold online services to account is something the government has been talking about, consulting on and committing to for a long period of time.

The member further cites a CBC article that talks about a new regulatory body to oversee a digital safety office. I would draw to the attention of the House the “Summary of Session Four: Regulatory Powers” of the expert advisory group on online safety, which states:

There was consensus on the need for a regulatory body, which could be in the form of a Digital Safety Commissioner. Experts agreed that the Commissioner should have audit powers, powers to inspect, have the powers to administer financial penalties and the powers to launch investigations to seek compliance if a systems-based approach is taken—but views differed on the extent of these powers. A few mentioned that it would be important to think about what would be practical and achievable for the role of the Commissioner. Some indicated they were reluctant to give too much power to the Commissioner, but others noted that the regulator would need to have “teeth” to force compliance.

This web page has been online for months.

I also reject the premise of what the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle stated when quoting the CBC story in question as it relates to the claim that the bill will be modelled on the European Union's Digital Services Act. This legislation is a made-in-Canada approach. The European Union model regulates more than social media and targets the marketplace and sellers. It also covers election disinformation and certain targeted ads, which our online harms legislation does not.

The member also referenced a CTV story regarding the types of online harms that the legislation would target. I would refer to the 2021 Liberal election platform, which contained the following areas as targets for the proposed legislation: “hate speech, terrorist content, content that incites violence, child sexual abuse material and the non-consensual distribution of intimate images.” These five items were the subject of the broad-based and extensive consultations I referenced earlier in my intervention.

Based on these consultations, a further two were added to the list to be considered. I would draw the attention of the House to an excerpt from the consultation entitled, “What We Heard: The Government’s proposed approach to address harmful content online”, which states, “Participants also suggested the inclusion of deep fake technology in online safety legislation”. It continues, “Many noted how child pornography and cyber blackmailing can originate from outside of Canada. Participants expressed frustration over the lack of recourse and tools available to victims to handle such instances and mentioned the need for a collaborative international effort to address online safety.”

It goes on to state:

Some respondents appreciated the proposal going beyond the Criminal Code definitions for certain types of content. They supported the decision to include material relating to child sexual exploitation in the definition that might not constitute a criminal offence, but which would nevertheless significantly harm children. A few stakeholders said that the proposal did not go far enough and that legislation could be broader by capturing content such as images of labour exploitation and domestic servitude of children. Support was also voiced for a concept of non-consensual sharing of intimate images.

It also notes:

A few respondents stated that additional types of content, such as doxing (i.e., the non-consensual disclosure of an individual’s private information), disinformation, bullying, harassment, defamation, conspiracy theories and illicit online opioid sales should also be captured by the legislative and regulatory framework.

This document has been online for more than a year.

I would also point to the expert advisory group's “Concluding Workshop Summary” web page, which states:

They emphasized the importance of preventing the same copies of some videos, like live-streamed atrocities, and child sexual abuse, from being shared again. Experts stressed that many file sharing services allow content to spread very quickly.

It goes on to say:

Experts emphasized that particularly egregious content like child sexual exploitation content would require its own solution. They explained that the equities associated with the removal of child pornography are different than other kinds of content, in that context simply does not matter with such material. In comparison, other types of content like hate speech may enjoy Charter protection in certain contexts. Some experts explained that a takedown obligation with a specific timeframe would make the most sense for child sexual exploitation content.

It also notes:

Experts disagreed on the usefulness of the five categories of harmful content previously identified in the Government’s 2021 proposal. These five categories include hate speech, terrorist content, incitement to violence, child sexual exploitation, and the non-consensual sharing of intimate images.

Another point is as follows:

A few participants pointed out how the anonymous nature of social media gives users more freedom to spread online harm such as bullying, death threats and online hate. A few participants noted that this can cause greater strain on the mental health of youth and could contribute to a feeling of loneliness, which, if unchecked, could lead to self-harm.

Again, this web page has been online for more than a year.

The member further cites the CTV article's reference to a new digital safety ombudsperson. I would point to the web page of the expert advisory group for the “Summary of Session Four: Regulatory Powers”, which states:

The Expert Group discussed the idea of an Ombudsperson and how it could relate to a Digital Safety Commissioner. Experts proposed that an Ombudsperson could be more focused on individual complaints ex post, should users not be satisfied with how a given service was responding to their concerns, flags and/or complaints. In this scheme, the Commissioner would assume the role of the regulator ex ante, with a mandate devoted to oversight and enforcement powers. Many argued that an Ombudsperson role should be embedded in the Commissioner’s office, and that information sharing between these functions would be useful. A few experts noted that the term “Ombudsperson” would be recognizable across the country as it is a common term and [has] meaning across other regimes in Canada.

It was mentioned that the Ombudsperson could play more of an adjudicative role, as distinguished from...the Commissioner’s oversight role, and would have some authority to have certain content removed off of platforms. Some experts noted that this would provide a level of comfort to victims. A few experts raised questions about where the line would be drawn between a private complaint and resolution versus the need for public authorities to be involved.

That web page has been online for months.

Additionally, during the round table on online safety and anti-Black racism, as the following summary states:

Participants were supportive of establishing a digital safety ombudsperson to hold social media platforms accountable and to be a venue for victims to report online harms. It was suggested the ombudsperson could act as a body that takes in victim complaints and works with the corresponding platform or governmental body to resolve the complaint. Some participants expressed concern over the ombudsperson's ability to process and respond to user complaints in a timely manner. To ensure the effectiveness of the ombudsperson, participants believe the body needs to have enough resources to keep pace with the complaints it receives. A few participants also noted the importance for the ombudsperson to be trained in cultural nuances to understand the cultural contexts behind content that is reported to them.

That web page has been online for more than a year.

Finally, I would draw the attention of the House to a Canadian Press article of February 21, 2024, which states, “The upcoming legislation is now expected to pave the way for a new ombudsperson to field public concerns about online content, as well as a new regulatory role that would oversee the conduct of internet platforms.” This appeared online before the bill was placed on notice.

Mr. Speaker, as your predecessor reiterated in his ruling on March 9, 2021, “it is a recognized principle that the House must be the first to learn the details of new legislative measures.” He went on to say, “...when the Chair is called on to determine whether there is a prima facie case of privilege, it must take into consideration the extent to which a member was hampered in performing their parliamentary functions and whether the alleged facts are an offence against the dignity of Parliament.” The Chair also indicated:

When it is determined that there is a prima facie case of privilege, the usual work of the House is immediately set aside in order to debate the question of privilege and decide on the response. Given the serious consequences for proceedings, it is not enough to say that the breach of privilege or contempt may have occurred, nor to cite precedence in the matter while implying that the government is presumably in the habit of acting in this way. The allegations must be clear and convincing for the Chair.

The government understands and respects the well-established practice that members have a right of first access to the legislation. It is clear that the government has been talking about and consulting widely on its plan to introduce online harms legislation for the past two years. As I have demonstrated, the public consultations have been wide-ranging and in-depth with documents and technical papers provided. All of this occurred prior to the bill's being placed on notice.

Some of the information provided by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle is not even in the bill, most notably the reference to its being modelled on the European Union's Digital Services Act, which is simply false, as I have clearly demonstrated. The member also hangs his arguments on the usage of the vernacular “not authorized to speak publicly” in the media reports he cites. It is certainly not proof of a leak, especially when the government consulted widely and publicly released details on the content of the legislative proposal for years before any bill was actually placed on notice.

The development of the legislation has been characterized by open, public and wide-ranging consultations with specific proposals consulted on. This is how the Leader of the Opposition was able to proclaim, on February 21, before the bill was even placed on notice, that he and his party were vehemently opposed to the bill. He was able to make this statement because of the public consultation and the information that the government has shared about its plan over the last two years. I want to be clear that the government did not share the bill before it was introduced in the House, and the evidence demonstrates that there was no premature disclosure of the bill.

I would submit to the House that consulting Canadians this widely is a healthy way to produce legislation and that the evidence I have presented clearly demonstrates that there is no prima facie question of privilege. It is our view that this does not give way for the Chair to conclude that there was a breach of privilege of the House nor to give the matter precedence over all other business of the House.

Bill C‑29—Notice of Time Allocation Motion

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

Madam Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the consideration of the Senate amendments to Bill C-29, an act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

That is noted.

It being 5:42 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-293, An Act respecting pandemic prevention and preparedness, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

There is one motion in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-293. Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted upon.