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

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned the Human Rights Tribunal. Would calling for the elimination of the State of Israel online land someone before the Human Rights Tribunal or would calling for “from the river to the sea”, which refers to the dismantling of Israel or the removal or extermination of its Jewish population, either of those, online, end up landing somebody before the Human Rights Tribunal?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think this is why we need to have the rigorous committee process. I know Conservatives will try to throw out lines and ask, “Does this matter? Does this matter?”

With regard to the important aspect of definition, if we just look through part 1 of the bill, it is very clear. As for the definitions that apply, the member knows, as I am sure she read the bill, what definitions apply. In terms of what happens around the Criminal Code, we have concerns about the definitions and we need to be very clear about that.

Conservatives will take that issue of clarity and try to exploit it. I think it is important, as adults in the room, as legislators, as parliamentarians, that we go through that rigorous committee process and that we ensure that questions are answered. I do not believe that the kind of speculation that Conservatives do is helpful at all. Let us get the work done around the bill. It is definitely needed to combat online harms. Let us make sure the definitions are clear and concise.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I know that my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby also cares about regulating what happens on the web. We had the opportunity to work together at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage on various topics that have to do with this issue.

We have been waiting for Bill C‑63 for a long time. I think that there is consensus on part 1. As the Bloc Québécois has been saying all day, it is proposing that we split the bill in order to quickly pass part 1, which is one part we all agree on.

The trouble is with part 2 and the subsequent parts. There are a lot of things that deserve to be discussed. There is one in particular that raises a major red flag, as far as I am concerned. It is the idea that a person could file a complaint because they fear that at some point, someone might utter hate speech or commit a crime as described in the clauses of the bill. A complaint could be filed simply on the presumption that a person might commit this type of crime.

To me, that seems to promote a sort of climate of accusation that could lead to paranoia. It makes me think of the movie Minority Report. I am sure my colleague has heard of it. I would like his impressions of this type of thing that we find in Bill C‑63.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is why we would like the bill to go to committee for a thorough study, because it is important in the context of this bill.

That said, we know that hate crimes are on the rise. We are seeing more and more anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, racism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, and so on. That is why it is important to have clear definitions in the bill.

At this stage of the bill's consideration, we are being asked to vote on the principle of the bill. The bill seeks to reduce online harm, and we agree with that principle. However, there are still many questions and details to be studied. We will have the opportunity to amend the bill in committee to remove certain parts or add others. There is still a lot of work to be done. The NDP wants to refer the bill to committee so that we can begin that work.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my NDP colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby for his speech and his involvement in this serious issue.

Unfortunately, we have more proof that the Liberals are dragging their feet and waiting to take action. Online hate is a real problem. Many children and teenagers are experiencing social media in harmful, aggressive and damaging ways. These young people are often the victims of cyberbullying and cyber-attacks, which create very tense situations. The Liberals have not done anything about that.

My colleague is right in saying the Liberals missed something in this bill. The Minister of Justice does not see it. The algorithms are creating echo chambers where people with far-right perspectives, who are racist, homophobic, transphobic and sexist, feed off each other. For example, the phenomenon of fake news is on the rise. The Liberals do not dare touch the issue of secret algorithms.

Why does my colleague think that the Liberals do not dare take that fundamental step in the fight against online hate?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a really great question from my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

I know that he has done a lot of work to protect children. As a father, it is important for my colleague to ensure that children are not inundated with toxic content that encourages them to self-harm or to commit suicide. It is appalling to see what is out there.

My colleague is right to talk about the Liberals' abject failure. Everyone heard the Prime Minister say in 2021 that he was going to introduce a bill within 100 days to counter all the attacks, the hate crimes and the attacks on children that we are seeing. It took another two years.

Furthermore, the Liberals did not touch on the real profit maker for the web giants: the algorithms. Algorithms rake in incredible profits for these companies. They did not seem to want to look at this key element, and we can speculate as to why. However, we want to get answers to this question, and that is something we are going to do in committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to rise and speak to Bill C-63.

We often talk about the communities and neighbourhoods in which we live. We do this not only as parliamentarians but also as politicians in general, whether at the municipal, provincial, or federal level. We talk about how we want people to feel safe. People need to feel safe in their homes, in their communities and in the places where they live. That has always been a priority for the current government and, I would like to think, for all parliamentarians of all political stripes. However, sometimes we need to look at finding a better definition of what we mean when we talk about keeping people safe in our communities.

The Internet is a wonderful thing, and it plays a critical and important role in society today. In fact, I would argue that, nowadays, it is an essential service that is virtually required in all communities. We see provincial and national governments investing greatly to ensure that there is more access to the Internet. We have become more and more dependent on it in so many different ways. It is, for all intents and purposes, a part of the community.

I could go back to the days when I was a child, and my parents would tell me to go outside and play. Yes, I would include my children as having been encouraged to go outside and play. Then things such as Nintendo came out, and people started gravitating toward the TV and playing computer games. I have grandchildren now, and I get the opportunity to see my two grandsons quite a bit. I can tell members that, when I do, I am totally amazed at what they are participating in on the Internet and with respect to technology. There are incredible programs associated with it, from gaming to YouTube, that I would suggest are a part of the community. Therefore, when we say that we want to protect our children in our communities when they are outside, we also need to protect them when they are inside.

It is easy for mega platforms to say it is not their responsibility but that of the parent or guardian. From my perspective, that is a cop-out. We have a responsibility here, and we need to recognize that responsibility. That is what Bill C-63 is all about.

Some people will talk about freedom of speech and so forth. I am all for freedom of speech. In fact, I just got an email from a constituent who is quite upset about how the profanity and flags being displayed by a particular vehicle that is driving around is promoting all sorts of nastiness in the community. I indicated to them that freedom of speech entitles that individual to do that.

I care deeply about the fact that we, as a political party, brought in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression. At the end of the day, I will always advocate for freedom of speech, but there are limitations. I believe that, if we look at Bill C-63, we can get a better sense of the types of limitations the government is talking about. Not only that, but I believe they are a reflection of a lot of the work that has been put together in order to bring the legislation before us today.

I understand some of the comments that have been brought forward, depending on which political parties addressed the bill so far. However, the minister himself has reinforced that this is not something that was done on a napkin; it is something that has taken a great deal of time, effort and resources to make sure that we got it right. The minister was very clear about the consultations that were done, the research that took a look at what has been done in other countries, and what is being said here in our communities. There are a great number of people who have been engaged in the legislation. I suspect that once it gets to committee we will continue to hear a wide spectrum of opinions and thoughts on it.

I do not believe that as legislators we should be put off to such a degree that we do not take action. I am inclined to agree with the minister in saying that this is a holistic approach at dealing with an important issue. We should not be looking at ways to divide the legislation. Rather, we should be looking at ways it can be improved. The minister himself, earlier today, said that if members have ideas or amendments they believe will give more strength to the legislation, then let us hear them. Bring them forward.

Often there is a great deal of debate on something at second reading and not as much at third reading. I suggest that the legislation before us might be the type of legislation that it would be beneficial to pass relatively quickly out of second reading, after some members have had the opportunity to provide some thoughts, in favour of having more reading or debate time at third reading but more specifically to allow for time at the committee stage. That would allow, for example, members the opportunity to have discussions with constituents over the summer, knowing full well that the bill is at committee. I think there is a great deal of merit to that.

There was something that spoke volumes, in terms of keeping the community safe, and the impact today that the Internet has on our children in particular. Platforms have a responsibility, and we have to ensure that they are living up to that responsibility.

I want to speak about Carol Todd, the mother of Amanda Todd, to whom reference has been made already. Ultimately, I believe, she is one of the primary reasons why the legislation is so critically important. Amanda Michelle Todd was born November 27, 1996, and passed away October 10, 2012. Colleagues can do the math. She was a 15-year-old Canadian student and a victim of cyber-bullying who hanged herself at her home in Port Coquitlam, British Columbia. There is a great deal of information on the Internet about to Amanda. I thank her mother, Carol, for having the courage to share the story of her daughter, because it is quite tragic.

I think there is a lot of blame that can be passed around, whether it is to the government, the private sector or society, including individuals. Carol Todd made reference to the thought that her daughter Amanda might still actually be alive if, in fact, Bill C-63 had been law at the time. She said, “As a mom, and having gone through the story that I've gone through with Amanda, this needs to be bipartisan. All parties in the House of Commons need to look in their hearts and look at young Canadians. Our job is to protect them. And parents, we can't do it alone. The government has to step in and that's what we are calling for.”

That is a personal appeal, and it is not that often I will bring up a personal appeal of this nature. I thought it was warranted because I believe it really amplifies and humanizes why this legislation is so important. Some members, as we have seen in the debate already, have indicated that they disagree with certain aspects of the legislation, and that is fine. I can appreciate that there will be diverse opinions on this legislation. However, let us not use that as a way to ultimately prevent the legislation from moving forward.

Years of consultation and work have been put into the legislation to get it to where it is today. I would suggest, given we all have had discussions related to these types of issues, during private members' bills or with constituents, we understand the importance of freedom of speech. We know why we have the Charter of Rights. We understand the basics of hate crime and we all, I believe, acknowledge that freedom of speech does have some limitations to it.

I would like to talk about some of the things we should think about, in terms of responsibilities, when we think about platforms. I want to focus on platforms in my last three minutes. Platforms have a responsibility to be responsible. It is not all about profit. There is a societal responsibility that platforms have, and if they are not prepared to take it upon themselves to be responsible, then the government does need to take more actions.

Platforms need to understand and appreciate that there are certain aspects of society, and here we are talking about children, that need to be protected. Platforms cannot pass the buck on to parents and guardians. Yes, parents and guardians have the primary responsibility, but the Internet never shuts down. Even parents and guardians have limitations. Platforms need to recognize that they also have a responsibility to protect children.

Sexually victimized children, and intimate content that is shared without consent, are the types of things platforms have to do due diligence on. When the issue is raised to platforms, there is a moral and, with the passage of this legislation, a legal obligation for them to take action. I am surprised it has taken this type of legislation to hit that point home. At the end of the day, whether a life is lost, people being bullied, or depression and mental issues are caused because of things of that nature, platforms have to take responsibility.

There are other aspects that we need to be very much aware of. Inciting violent extremism or terrorism needs to be flagged. Content that induces a child to harm themselves also needs to be flagged. As it has been pointed out, this legislation would have a real, positive, profound impact, and it would not have to take away one's freedom of speech. It does not apply to private conversations or communications.

I will leave it at that and continue at a later date.

[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.

[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, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I guess there are now two reasons the Conservatives are opposing the legislation. They have that far-right element, and I am going to a bit kind here, which has a tinfoil impact, where they believe in here and there, and in the stars, and that Canadian rights are being overridden. There is nothing to it.

I can assure the member opposite that she does not need to be fearful. This is not an attack on the far right. This is legislation that a vast majority of Canadians would support. Does she not realize that, by voting against the legislation, she would be voting against protecting a child? She would be voting against prohibiting sexual exploitation through the uploading of intimate pictures on the Internet.

This is legislation that would protect people in many different ways. It would protect people who have been exploited and our children. How can the Conservatives not vote for it? I hope it is not to deal with censorship, as the member opposite tries to say to justify her voting action.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member has heard about an app called Telegram. It has about a billion users, and its CEO was recently arrested in Paris. It is basically an Internet platform for the exchange of people, drugs, guns and pretty well every illicit substance we can possibly think of. I wonder whether the hon. member could address whether this particular legislation may have some effect on gaining Canadian control over those people within our jurisdiction who are on an app such as Telegram.

[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.

[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, I can assure the member that that is why I focused on the two categories in which the legislation would place its attention. I believe that the two categories I referenced as examples, the circulation of non-consensual sexual pictures and child pornography, are fairly clear-cut. I believe that Canadians as a whole, in all regions of the country, would support this particular legislation.

We must have a solid starting point to move forward. Through the creation of the commission and the opportunity for us to review the legislation once it becomes law, I am sure that there would be a number of things put in place to ensure, to say the least, that rights and freedoms would be being protected. We have the Constitution and the Charter of Rights, which, I must say, was brought in by Pierre Elliott Trudeau. I do not see an infringement in any fashion with respect to this legislation on a person's rights and freedoms.

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

Mr. Speaker, does my colleague believe that it is not just the content online that can be harmful to our youth but also the addictive design features incorporated into social media platforms? Does he also believe that those design features need to be regulated to protect our youth?