Bill C-63

An Act to enact the Online Harms Act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Human Rights Act and An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts

Part 1 of this enactment enacts the Online Harms Act , whose purpose is to, among other things, promote the online safety of persons in Canada, reduce harms caused to persons in Canada as a result of harmful content online and ensure that the operators of social media services in respect of which that Act applies are transparent and accountable with respect to their duties under that Act.
That Act, among other things,
(a) establishes the Digital Safety Commission of Canada, whose mandate is to administer and enforce that Act, ensure that operators of social media services in respect of which that Act applies are transparent and accountable with respect to their duties under that Act and contribute to the development of standards with respect to online safety;
(b) creates the position of Digital Safety Ombudsperson of Canada, whose mandate is to provide support to users of social media services in respect of which that Act applies and advocate for the public interest in relation to online safety;
(c) establishes the Digital Safety Office of Canada, whose mandate is to support the Digital Safety Commission of Canada and the Digital Safety Ombudsperson of Canada in the fulfillment of their mandates;
(d) imposes on the operators of social media services in respect of which that Act applies
(i) a duty to act responsibly in respect of the services that they operate, including by implementing measures that are adequate to mitigate the risk that users will be exposed to harmful content on the services and submitting digital safety plans to the Digital Safety Commission of Canada,
(ii) a duty to protect children in respect of the services that they operate by integrating into the services design features that are provided for by regulations,
(iii) a duty to make content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor and intimate content communicated without consent inaccessible to persons in Canada in certain circumstances, and
(iv) a duty to keep all records that are necessary to determine whether they are complying with their duties under that Act;
(e) authorizes the Digital Safety Commission of Canada to accredit certain persons that conduct research or engage in education, advocacy or awareness activities that are related to that Act for the purposes of enabling those persons to have access to inventories of electronic data and to electronic data of the operators of social media services in respect of which that Act applies;
(f) provides that persons in Canada may make a complaint to the Digital Safety Commission of Canada that content on a social media service in respect of which that Act applies is content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor or intimate content communicated without consent and authorizes the Commission to make orders requiring the operators of those services to make that content inaccessible to persons in Canada;
(g) authorizes the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting the payment of charges by the operators of social media services in respect of which that Act applies, for the purpose of recovering costs incurred in relation to that Act.
Part 1 also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
Part 2 amends the Criminal Code to, among other things,
(a) create a hate crime offence of committing an offence under that Act or any other Act of Parliament that is motivated by hatred based on certain factors;
(b) create a recognizance to keep the peace relating to hate propaganda and hate crime offences;
(c) define “hatred” for the purposes of the new offence and the hate propaganda offences; and
(d) increase the maximum sentences for the hate propaganda offences.
It also makes related amendments to other Acts.
Part 3 amends the Canadian Human Rights Act to provide that it is a discriminatory practice to communicate or cause to be communicated hate speech by means of the Internet or any other means of telecommunication in a context in which the hate speech is likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination. It authorizes the Canadian Human Rights Commission to deal with complaints alleging that discriminatory practice and authorizes the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to inquire into such complaints and order remedies.
Part 4 amends An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service to, among other things,
(a) clarify the types of Internet services covered by that Act;
(b) simplify the mandatory notification process set out in section 3 by providing that all notifications be sent to a law enforcement body designated in the regulations;
(c) require that transmission data be provided with the mandatory notice in cases where the content is manifestly child pornography;
(d) extend the period of preservation of data related to an offence;
(e) extend the limitation period for the prosecution of an offence under that Act; and
(f) add certain regulation-making powers.
Part 5 contains a coordinating amendment.

Online Harms Act

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the important concerns pointed out by the member from the NDP, I think they are really important suggestions to get to the floor of the committee. With respect to the ideas about dividing the bill, I think what is really important is that after four years of consultation, we understand online harms to be a continuum. They affect not just children; they also affect adolescents and adults.

I appreciate the member opposite's work tremendously as well. She has been an outspoken advocate for women, including women who are facing violence and things like coercive control. A very key measure in the bill deals with not just adult women but also younger women. It deals with the phenomenon of revenge porn, the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. We know that has had tragic consequences for young Canadian women in this country, such as Rehtaeh Parsons and Amanda Todd. Under Bill C‑63, that kind of material would have to come down within 24 hours.

Could the member comment as to whether that would help keep Canadian young women and adult women safe?

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed working with my colleague on so many different issues over the years. She talked about the protection of children. The U.S. Senate recently passed the kids online safety act with bipartisan support, and it would be great to be able to do something like that here on parts of the bill.

However, the U.S. bill contained provisions to restrict design features that contribute to compulsive use of social media by youth, like automatic playing of media, rewards for time spent on the platform, and notifications. By contrast, Bill C-63 primarily focuses on addressing harmful content and leaves the possibility of restricting addictive design features to future regulations.

Given the youth mental health crisis and increasing concerns about the role of social media, does my colleague believe that Bill C-63 could be improved by incorporating provisions like those seen in the U.S. bill to restrict addictive design features?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Consular Affairs)]

Mr. Speaker, today I am going to speak about one of the online harms act's core purposes, and that is the protection of children. Our government will stop at nothing to ensure that kids in this country are safe, and this includes their online safety.

Our children spend many hours of their day watching online videos, chatting with their friends and posting snippets of their lives. Being online is integral to their lives and offers many benefits. It is a way for them to connect, learn and find entertainment. However, the online space is not always safe for children. We have rigorous toy standards to ensure that Canadian kids do not get hurt while playing. The Internet is the most complex and riskiest toy ever invented. It must have its own safety standards to protect kids from the harms embedded within social media platforms.

For too long, we have tolerated a system where social media platforms have off-loaded their responsibilities onto parents, expecting them to protect their kids from harms that platforms create and amplify. Until now, there have been no safety regulations for online platforms. Parents and kids do not know where to turn to get help when things go wrong online.

The bill would create a baseline standard for online platforms to keep Canadians safe. It would hold platforms accountable for the content they host.

Over the last several years, we have conducted extensive public consultations. A common theme that was heard was the vulnerability of children online and the pressing need to take steps to protect them. At the same time, the consultations highlighted a desire for a flexible, risk-based approach to online regulation. Bill C-63 would balance these two objectives.

I am disappointed to see the Conservatives discredit the hard work of the organizers, victims and survivors across the country who were consulted on the legislation. By refusing to support the bill, they are rejecting this experience and the reality of today's world that children are not currently safe online. The bill was meticulously created to keep Canadians safe while ensuring that their rights are maintained.

The online harms act introduces a new duty to protect children. It requires platforms to integrate design features that protect children on their platforms and report on the measures they are taking to protect children. The specific design features will be identified following open regulatory processes where all interested parties have a chance to be heard. This would ensure that the measures are fit for purpose and consider the latest research and evidence, as well as that they are workable for the social media services that need to implement them. We believe this approach to protecting children respects the government's position of supporting a safe and inclusive digital space in Canada.

The online harms act would require operators of social media services to integrate design features that protect children, such as age-appropriate design. Bill C-63 does not opt for a prescriptive approach requiring the use of a specific technology, such as age verification; instead, it opts for a principle-based approach that can evolve with technology. The goal of age-appropriate design is to make the online user experience of children safer by decreasing the risk that they will encounter harmful content. This might include design features such as parental controls, default settings related to warning labels on content and safe search settings.

Age-appropriate design is useful because it is not a one-size-fits-all approach. It recognizes that a five-year-old and a 16-year-old interact with the online world differently, so they likely require different design features to improve the safety of their online experience. The digital safety commission would articulate these features through regulations after examining industry practices and available technology, as well as engaging with stakeholders and Canadians. This process would ensure that the subsequent regulations on design features that protect children are well-informed and in line with Canadians' expectations of privacy and digital expression.

Bill C-63 was crafted with special attention to freedom of speech, a charter right that the government will always protect. At each step, we made design choices with freedom of expression top of mind. Under the online harms act, the risk-based approach is anchored in a duty to act responsibly that requires platforms to create safer spaces online so that users are less likely to encounter harmful content. The duty to act seeks to ensure that we have in place adequate systems by services that limit the likelihood of users viewing harmful content.

Bill C-63 would also enhance the protection of children online by amending an act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service, the mandatory reporting act. The bill would amend the mandatory reporting act to strengthen reporting obligations under the act to help facilitate child pornography investigations. The bill would allow for the centralization of reporting to a single law enforcement body, a response to a long-time ask from law enforcement and child advocates.

The duty to report would be triggered when the service provider has reasonable grounds to believe that their network is being or has been used to commit a child pornography offence. The reporting requirement would also be enhanced to require the provision of transmission data in any report where the service provider believes that the material is manifestly child pornography.

We recognize that children are spending more and more of their time on the Internet. Our goal is not to prevent children from having access to valuable information and a social experience online. Our goal is the opposite: to make the online environment as safe as possible for them to explore. The duties set out in the online harms act would be critical to accomplishing this goal.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, since I was interrupted twice during the beginning of my speech, I will start from the top.

I am here today to talk about this very important bill on online harms and how it conveys what the online world translates into real, lived experiences for so many people across Canada. I was part of the justice committee when it started a study on online harms and hate crimes and how they translate to lived realities. I have seen first-hand, in my nine years as a member of Parliament, people being shot down in mosques and victimized in synagogues because of significant hateful rhetoric being pushed online and right-wing organizations targeting LGBT communities, for example.

This bill would have a very significant role to play in how we conduct ourselves as a country. The hon. member before me talked about the role of enforcement. We are talking about federal policy. We are talking about how we at the federal level can improve our legislation to make sure that Canadians are kept safe. All we can do is encourage our premiers to pick up the mantle and ensure that our communities are being kept safe and that laws are being enforced.

I will speak about two specific things in the Criminal Code. It is an enormous shame that the measures proposed by Bill C‑63 have been subject to significant misinformation and disinformation. I am extremely disappointed in the reaction of the official opposition to this critical legislation, having seen what has transpired because of online hate.

When the bill was put on notice but before the actual text was publicly available, we saw the Conservatives reject it immediately. They had no regard for its substance, no regard for the years of consultation with victims and with survivors of abuse, and no regard for the countless organizations that are begging the government to do more about exploitation and hatred, online and in the real world. Canadians deserve a lot better than this.

I am proud to support Bill C‑63. I would like to go through some of the myths that have been circulated about the part of the bill that deals with hatred specifically. I will be explaining why I think these are unfounded.

Let us start with the proposed hate crime offence. It would make it an indictable offence to commit an offence in the Criminal Code or any other act of Parliament where the offence is motivated by hatred. It would have a maximum punishment of life imprisonment. This is a maximum punishment, not a minimum.

There are two important reasons for creating this specific hate crime offence. First, it would appropriately denounce the harm caused by hate crimes. Second, it would assist with data collection on hate crimes in Canada. Currently, a judge can apply the provision on hate as an aggravating factor in the Criminal Code to help determine a sentence, but the underlying offence is not categorized, for statistical purposes, as a hate crime. If this proposed hate crime offence is enacted, statistics on hate crimes would allow governments, law enforcement and victims to better understand how hate crimes are being charged, how they are being prosecuted and how they are being addressed by the courts.

Some have expressed concerns that the availability of life imprisonment as a penalty could result in unjust and misappropriate sentencing outcomes. I would like to explain why those concerns are misplaced.

First, the law in Canada requires judges to impose a just sentence that is proportional to the seriousness of the offence and the offender's blameworthiness. Second, a maximum sentence represents just that: the highest possible sentence, to be imposed only in the most serious of cases. It acts as a ceiling for a range of sentences, with judges being required to impose an appropriate one depending on the seriousness of the crime and the responsibility of the offender.

Maximum penalties of any kind are, by their very nature, imposed very rarely, taking into account principles of sentencing as applied on a case-by-case basis. As a result, life imprisonment would only be appropriate in the most serious of cases, notably for Criminal Code offences that are already punishable by maximum life imprisonment, such as aggravated assault and sexual assault.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. As I listened to the Attorney General's question and reflected on my colleague's speech, I was struck, and I was struck for a few different reasons.

The Attorney General spoke about fitness of sentence. This is a government that has allowed people who abuse children, people who produce child sexual abuse and exploitation material, people who distribute it, people who possess it and people who lure children, to serve their sentences on house arrest. My concern is that Bill C-63 would create a parallel process, an administrative process, to deal with these pernicious and insidious crimes.

This government is not serious when it comes to protecting children. How can we trust Bill C-63 when they will not even address the deficiencies in the laws, particularly sentencing laws, around child sexual abuse and exploitation material and Internet luring?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-63 is an act that is basically split into two parts, and the first part of it is aimed at reducing exposure to harmful content. It would put in place special protection provisions for children as well as make online service providers accountable. It is particularly aimed at addressing online child sexual exploitation, which has increased 290% over the last 10 years.

The second part is intended to address and denounce hate crimes on the Internet, and I note that groups like the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, which my hon. colleague sort of touched upon, does raise concerns about vast authority bestowed upon a newly established body, granting it sweeping powers that include new search powers of electronic data with no warrant requirement, and they pose significant threats to privacy rights.

I think everybody in this House wants to see action, for sure, on protecting our nation's children from online pornography, hate and other very harmful mechanisms. At the same time, I think it is fair to say that there are serious concerns about how we address free speech on the Internet. Would my hon. colleague be willing to look at splitting this bill in two so that we can come up with legislation that protects our children, while also making sure that we preserve freedom of speech in this country?

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am hearing a collaborative approach between Bill C-63 and Bill C-412. The only difficulty I have with that is this. I am not opposed to that in principle, but I think there are very few measures in Bill C-63 that Conservatives could actually support, that we could actually parse out of the bill and perhaps pass with unanimous consent here in the House.

Clearly, Bill C-63 will be studied at committee. I would encourage all members on the committee to be open to the possibility of looking at significant amendments to replace some of the dangerous language and the unintended consequences in the bill with the clear, precise and immediate protections offered to Canadian families and kids in Bill C-412.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I appreciated the thoroughness of most of his comments.

Obviously, we all share the same concerns about public protection, the removal of non-consensual images, the protection of children and privacy. I understand all that quite well. If I am not mistaken, he referred a few times in his speech to Bill C‑412.

I have a question for my colleague, who seems to have a good grasp of the topic. Would he not be able to work in committee on Bill C‑63? He could suggest improvements to the bill and include parts of the other bill he was talking about to make Bill C‑63 more effective. If I understand correctly, the member has specific criticisms related to certain aspects. Could we find a way to work on that? Will he commit to doing so?

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there was much to that particular question. The minister asked very forcefully why the Conservatives would be opposed to removing that material. Of course, we are not. However, Bill C-63 talks about that being taken down not immediately, but after a complaint, after it is reviewed and within 24 hours. That is insufficient.

The minister also talked about all the various groups that have applauded the government's Bill C-63. I could literally spend another 20 minutes talking about the public interest groups, and very key individuals in the legal field who have spoken against the bill as another form of censorship by the current government. Therefore, there is zero balance protecting the rights of Canadian families, their children and our civil liberties. Bill C-412 does exactly that.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians cannot wait five years.

This raises serious concerns about transparency, efficiency and the potential impact on free speech. Even worse, the $200 million does not cover the additional workload for the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which would have to manage a surge of complaints about social media posts in today's cancel culture. The government has no estimate of how many complaints the commission might receive, so it is very likely the $200 million is just the beginning.

To put that in perspective, the PBO's numbers reveal that the bureaucracy created solely by Bill C-63 would be about one-third larger than that of the Transportation Safety Board of Canada, the agency responsible for ensuring the safety of Canadians in the air and on the roads. Additionally, the PBO's analysis shows that on a per capita basis, the new bureaucracy would be vastly larger than that of any comparable agency in other peer countries.

Bill C-63 should be scrapped just on the basis of its wasteful cost. It is absurd that while Liberals underfund the RCMP, leaving almost one-third of cybercrime positions vacant, they are proposing to dump $200 million and hire 300 staff for a vague new bureaucracy.

Canadians are rightly concerned. In this digital age, we must strike a balance between protecting individuals from harmful content and safeguarding their rights. That is why the Conservative Party is committed to delivering common-sense solutions that would protect our children and ensure their safety online without compromising the freedoms we hold dear.

The bottom line is that Canadians are living in fear due to online harassment and it is costing lives. They need real protection, not more Liberal delays and incompetence. The Liberals should adopt the common-sense solutions in Bill C-412 or call an immediate election and let Canadians choose real, immediate protections or another costly Liberal censorship scheme.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I proudly rise today in opposition to Bill C-63.

Canadians take pride in living in a nation where justice prevails. Freedoms are upheld and our most vulnerable, especially our children, are protected. However, after nine years of this failed government, crime is rising, leaving families across the country concerned for the safety of their loved ones, both on the streets and online.

Online criminal activity continues to surge, but the Liberals' response has been to push censorship bills that would force Canadians into a false choice between their safety and free expression. Instead of addressing the real issues, this Liberal legislation silences Canadians under the guise of security, creating bloated bureaucracies led by the Prime Minister's hand-picked allies. Canadians are bearing the brunt of this government's failures.

Bill C-63 introduces a dangerous new provision for an offence “motivated by hatred”, which could impose a life sentence for even minor infractions under any act of Parliament. This broad, unchecked provision opens the door to the possibility that mere words alone could lead to life imprisonment.

While the government claims that a serious underlying act must occur for this punishment to apply, that is simply not reflected in the text of the bill. Section 320 of the Criminal Code would be amended to state, “Everyone who commits an offence under this Act or any other Act of Parliament...is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life.”

Laws to address the issues we are witnessing have been in place for decades, and the Supreme Court has ruled on them multiple times. We do not need new laws to govern hate speech. This government needs to grow a backbone and enforce the laws as they stand.

Earlier this year at the justice committee, the justice minister openly admitted that Bill C-63's new hate crime offence could apply to any offence as long as it is hate-motivated. He said the bill's sentencing range covers everything from minor to serious crimes, but judges, hand-picked by this government, will make sure minor offences do not receive harsh sentences. However, by leaving this to the courts, the government is being reckless. We cannot rely on vague promises that the judiciary will fix a poorly drafted bill. Parliament needs to clearly define when a life sentence should apply, not hand over broad and unchecked power.

The bill risks extreme punishments for minor infractions. As stated by a political commentator, “[The] Liberals are using the guillotine for speech violations and [on the other hand] house arrest for career criminals roaming the streets exploiting a broken bail system.” Only in Canada would that bizarre statement have application.

Widespread concern from all sides of the political spectrum had been raised about Bill C-63's introduction of a so-called hate crime peace bond, with many labelling it as a pre-crime measure for speech. The problem lies in the fact that this provision would extend the power to issue peace bonds based solely on speech-related offences without clearly defining what constitutes such crimes or ensuring that they meet the criminal standard for hate.

While the Liberals focus on banning opinions that challenge the Prime Minister's ideology, Conservatives are dedicated to keeping Canadians safe, both online and off-line and, also at the same point, upholding and defending their civil liberties, a concept that is completely unknown to this government.

This is why my colleague the member for Calgary Nose Hill introduced Bill C-412. Bill C-412 is designed to protect Canadians online through three key areas: protection from online criminal harassment, safeguarding our children and ensuring user privacy. Bill C-412 aims to empower victims of online criminal harassment who currently have limited options for quickly and permanently ending their harassment.

This legislation would allow victims to apply to a judge to identify their harasser, end the harassment and then impose conditions to stop it, as deemed appropriate by a court. It also provides legal clarity regarding when online operators such as social media platforms must disclose the identity of an alleged abuser. Additionally, the legislation introduces an aggravating factor for perpetrators who repeatedly harass anonymously using multiple burner accounts.

These measures are designed to streamline the process for victims to interact with law enforcement and receive effective protections, ultimately enabling law enforcement to de-escalate violence in a timely manner. In contrast, the Liberals' Bill C-63 contains no such provisions, representing a significant flaw for a bill that purports to protect Canadians from online harm.

Online harassment is widespread and often anonymous, yet our current laws are outdated and Bill C-63 fails to provide on this front. In addition, Bill C-63 fails our children by delaying protections and relying on an unclear regulatory process. In contrast, Bill C-412 takes proactive measures by imposing a clear duty of care on online operators. The bill seeks to establish a novel set of checks and balances between the government, operators and parents to keep children safe online.

Under Bill C-412, existing government regulators, law enforcement and the judiciary would ensure operators follow their duty of care to keep kids safe online. Operators would be formally required to ensure they keep kids safe under a clear set of guidelines. Parents, then, would have all the tools needed to understand what their kids are doing online and then make informed decisions about what types of permissions to give them for their online use.

It would provide parents with tools to protect their children online through non-invasive age verification methods and would enforce these protections with steep penalties for non-compliance. Bill C-412 would specifically safeguard children against physical harm, bullying, sexual violence and harmful online content.

Bill C-412 offers a balanced solution that emphasizes privacy, preserving age verification methods, while explicitly prohibiting the use of digital IDs. Many Canadians are concerned about privacy and the misuse of digital IDs. Bill C-412 would ensure that digital identifiers could not be used for age verification. Meanwhile, Bill C-63 leaves privacy concerns unaddressed and lacks clear prohibitions against the misuse of digital IDs.

Bill C-63's vague regulatory framework allows for excessive bureaucratic oversight, creating opportunities for tech lobbyists to manipulate the process behind closed doors. Instead of providing immediate protections, it pushes key decisions into an opaque regulatory future, prioritizing the interests of big tech over the safety and well-being of Canadian families.

By failing to effectively tackle online harassment and leaving significant gaps in protections, Bill C-63 reflects a government more concerned about creating a facade of action than genuinely, actively safeguarding Canadians' rights and safety.

Bill C-63 seeks to reinstate section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, a provision that was removed by the Harper government and that even the Toronto Star, hardly a cheerleader for the Conservative Party of Canada, has deemed unnecessary for protecting Canadians from hate speech. Section 13, which was previously repealed for its overly broad and subjective application, allowed the government to censor speech without the need for criminal proceedings. Reintroducing this section would open the door to an extrajudicial system where vague definitions of hate speech could lead to a chilling effect on free speech.

The new section 13 would make communication of hate speech by anyone on the Internet, or other means of telecommunication, subject to the jurisdiction of the Canadian human rights complaints mechanism with the standard of proof being not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which is an extremely high standard, but merely a balance of probability, 50.01%. This is not only dangerous but deeply flawed. We have already seen the consequences when the Liberals attempted to appoint an arbiter under Bill C-63, who had previously argued that "terror is not an irrational" approach. This highlights the inherent risks in giving unchecked power to unelected individuals who may interpret free speech in ways that suppress legitimate voices.

Section 13 would also pave the way for dangerous precedents, like life sentences for hate crimes without proper legal thresholds. The Liberals have failed to provide evidence that such extreme measures would be effective in preventing hate when the laws we already have are not being enforced. We need to hear from legal experts and civil liberty groups to understand the unintended consequences this could bring. What we really need is action. Action today, not years from now, and not censorship, which is exactly what Bill C-63 does.

The government should focus on enforcing existing laws and protecting ethnic minority groups by empowering the RCMP, INSET and NSES to work collaboratively and quickly with local police forces and share intelligence to protect vulnerable communities; directing CSIS to implement threat reduction measures and communicate threats to ethnic minority groups; and ensuring the security infrastructure program provides real, timely funding to help community centres improve security. Rather than reintroducing section 13 and limiting free speech, the government should enforce current laws and take meaningful action to protect Canadians.

It is no surprise that the justice minister is proud of the only piece of legislation he has managed to introduce since his appointment. Meanwhile, that is in contrast to the Conservative Party of Canada, which has put forward 10 bills that offer real solutions to the issues Canadians face today. Even the justice minister himself, the bill's biggest advocate and cheerleader to the failed Liberal government, admitted it would take years for this bureaucracy to create and enforce regulations. Members should let that sink in.

This widely hailed, very important piece of legislation is not going to protect families for years to come. That is the impact of the government. There are announcements with no effective follow-through. According to the justice minister's own logic, millions of taxpayer dollars would be wasted long before any meaningful protection or enforcement is put in place.

Canadians deserve better than half-hearted reforms. They need a government committed to real accountability and actionable solutions. It is time for the minister to stop hiding behind buzzwords and start delivering results that protect Canadians day in and day out.

As shadow minister for justice, I stand firm in criminalizing and enforcing laws that protect our most vulnerable: our children. We must criminalize and enforce penalties against those who victimize children online or bully them digitally. We must punish those who induce self-harm or incite violence in minors. We must ensure strict bans on distributing intimate content without consent, including the rise of deepfakes.

My Conservative colleagues and I believe these serious crimes must be investigated by police, be tried in court and result in a jail sentence. We will not support the creation of bureaucratic offices that do nothing to prevent crime or bring justice to victims. A Conservative government would protect our children and punish those who prey on them, not create more red tape.

This past summer, the PBO revealed the cost of the Liberal government's online harms act. It would cost $200 million to create a new 330-person bureaucracy to enforce rules that are still undefined. That is $200 million up front with no protection to create more work for a bloated bureaucracy.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think Bill C‑63 is important. Online hate is a major problem for us politicians on a daily basis. There is also the issue of non-consensual sharing of intimate images, child pornography, hate speech and so on. It is a major issue and it needs to be tackled.

I would like to hear my colleague talk about the safeguards that are included in Bill C‑63 to ensure that no one is infringing on freedom of expression. That is always the challenge. Of course, people are spewing nonsense everywhere, and it would be nice if people would stop saying whatever comes to mind on social media. That said, we do not want to limit freedom of expression.

What kind of safeguards are included in Bill C‑63?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the legislation is a good, solid first step in addressing, in good part, many of the issues the member has just raised. When I gave some of the statistics I gave about incidents being registered with the police or police reports being filed, those numbers did not reflect the actual numbers as they did not include the incidents that go unreported.

There are so many mischievous players, not only here in Canada but also, even more so, outside of Canada. I look at this legislation as one that ultimately has nothing to do with a person's, or a Canadian's, freedoms or rights. We also have responsibilities, and as legislators, I believe we have to stand up strong to support actions, such as those Bill C-63 is proposing to do, to protect the interests of our children and victims of different forms of sexual exploitation.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite was trying to pose a question to the opposition about what he wants us to explain. He will get his chance to ask questions of the government when he is sitting in opposition.

The reason we do not have any confidence in Bill C-63 is that the government would be choosing the censors, and the government has failed at everything it has attempted to do. The people have lost confidence in any boards that the government has appointed, the latest being what we are hearing on SDTC.

We do have a bill, Bill C-412, that would protect children. It actually zeros in on the protection of children and proposes specific measures to take to protect them from viewing material they should not be seeing online.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to what I believe to be very positive legislation. I suspect that, if we were to canvass a vast majority of Canadians, they would recognize that what the online harms act deals with is a very positive thing.

I am a bit surprised at the Conservative Party's approach to the legislation. It is important to look at the essence of what the online harms bill attempts to recognize as issues. There are two categories, if I can put it that way, of what one would classify as the harmful contact specifically being dealt with in Bill C-63. The first is intimate images communicated without consent, including sexually explicit deepfakes, and the second is content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor.

I would have thought that all members of the House would support those initiatives. I have heard Conservatives across the way talk about concerns related to them, how offended they are about the issue and the government needing to do something. Now that we have a piece of legislation before the House with which, instead of just talking about it, the Conservatives can actually do something about it.

I was very surprised to read an editorial back in July in the Winnipeg Free Press that the Conservatives not only oppose the legislation, but also, if the legislation were to pass in the House, a Conservative government would repeal it. It would repeal the law. I do not quite understand the logic behind that, and I hope that during questions and comments, a member of the Conservative Party will have the courage to explain to Canadians why Conservatives would oppose this legislation.

I will read from the Winnipeg Free Press article, an editorial that was written July 10. I want to quote the article because the Winnipeg Free Press is very much apolitical and sticks to the facts. I know the facts can be confusing to the Conservatives, but here is what it had to say:

In the current era of partisan politics, [the Conservative leader] and others should recognize it is important to recognize a good idea when it comes along, whoever might pitch it.

And this is still just an idea — the act has not passed and the regulators have not been established. Given its unrealized state, [the Conservative leader's] dismissal is premature.

A spokesperson for [the Conservative leader] said a ‘common sense Conservative government’ would repeal the act. Well, let's take a look at the situation, and determine the good sense of a such a pledge.

According to Statistics Canada, between 2014 and 2022 there were 15,630 incidents of police-reported online sexual offences against children, and 45,816 online incidents of child pornography. The overall rate of police-reported online child sexual exploitation incidents in Canada has risen to 160 incidents per 100,000 children between 2014 and 2022 — a 217 per cent increase.

There were 219 reported online hate crime incidents in 2022, up from 92 four years prior. Of those cyber-related hate crimes, 82 per cent were violent.

This legislation deals with issues that are important to Canadians, and the Conservative Party is saying no. Not only are the Conservatives going to vote against it, but if it were to pass, a future “common-sense”, or I would suggest nonsense, Conservative government would repeal the law. I question why.