Bill C-63 (Historical)

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.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to do a quick recap for anyone who missed the first part of my speech before QP. I started by saying why we have been here for three weeks debating a parliamentary privilege motion. I explained that it is because the Liberals will not produce the documents the Speaker ordered and that it is related to the green slush fund and the $400-million scandal, so no government business or private members' business can come forward until they produce the documents. That is what we are waiting for.

I started to debunk the myths of the weak reasons the Liberals have given for why they cannot produce the documents, beginning with their claim that giving the documents to the RCMP would be a violation of people's charter rights. This is absolutely not true. The police and the RCMP get tips all the time, for example through Crime Stoppers, phone calls and documents about criminal activity, and they have to exercise due diligence by looking into the evidence that is presented. If they do find evidence of criminality, then they need to go to the courts and request the documents formally so they can be used in a court case.

That is the law, so the argument is just a total red herring from the Liberals.

I talked about the Liberals' hypocrisy in even talking about charter rights, since they have violated every one of them, and I went down the whole list. I did not get to indigenous rights because if we started talking about the way they have violated those, we would be here all day. Therefore I will move along to my second point.

The Liberals have claimed that there needs to be more separation between Parliament and the RCMP. Certainly I agree that there should be separation. The job of the RCMP is to enforce the rule of law for everybody equally. I think that we are what our record says we are, so let us look at the record of the relationship and the separation between the RCMP and the Liberal government.

Let us start with the billionaire's island fiasco. Members may remember that the Prime Minister wasted 215,000 dollars' worth of taxpayer money. It was alleged that if he did not give himself written permission, it was actually fraud. The internal RCMP documents showed that the force considered opening a fraud investigation after details of the trip came to light, but it cited numerous reasons why it did not, including the fact that neither Parliament nor the Ethics Commissioner chose to refer the case to the police.

We can see from that, first of all, that the RCMP does accept documents from Parliament. We can also see that there was no evidence of whether or not the Prime Minister granted himself permission to go on the billionaire's island trip. If he did not, he definitely had committed fraud. The RCMP did not even bother to investigate.

Next is the SNC-Lavalin scandal. We know that Jody Wilson-Raybould was clear with the Prime Minister and Elder Marques that they absolutely could not talk to the prosecutor about getting SNC-Lavalin the deal to get it off the hook. The Prime Minister kicked Jody Wilson-Raybould to the curb and put his buddy David Lametti in place, and voila, SNC-Lavalin had the agreement it needed in order to get off the hook.

Did the RCMP investigate this? No, it did not, until four years after the fact, after Brenda Lucki retired, when the RCMP decided it was going to start investigating. Interestingly, as soon as it announced that, David Lametti was kicked out of cabinet and ended up stepping down as an MP.

Let us talk about the Brenda Lucki situation. In the Nova Scotia massacre, it was clear that the RCMP was working on behalf of Parliament, with the Liberal government. An article from the National Post says:

In June, the Mass Casualty Commission revealed disputes between RCMP investigators in Nova Scotia and the commissioner, with allegations Lucki let the politics interfere with the probe.

Notes from the Mountie in charge of the massacre investigation said that on a conference call, Lucki expressed disappointment the types of guns used by the killer had not been released to the public because she had promised the Prime Minister's Office and the public safety minister the guns would be detailed, tied to pending gun control legislation.

There is not a lot of separation there.

Now let us talk about the WE Charity scandal. Subsection 119(1) of the Criminal Code outlines that it is illegal for a holder of public office to take an action that benefits themself or their family. It is clear to everyone that the Prime Minister took an action by approving nearly a billion dollars for the WE Charity scandal.

We all know that his mother, his brother and his wife were paid by the WE Charity to do speaking engagements. According to a BBC News article, the Prime Minister said, “I made a mistake for not recusing myself from the discussions immediately, given my family's history”. He did not make a mistake; he broke the law. Again, the RCMP did nothing. If we look at the history, we see that there is not enough separation; there needs to be more.

If we go on to the next thing, they are claiming there is really nothing to see. However, a whistle-blower said there was criminal activity. We should at least get the documents the Speaker correctly ordered, and we should get to work on that.

However, it is a pattern of corruption. We have seen that with the government from the beginning. Since I was elected in 2015, there has been a history of corruption, not just at the Prime Minister's level but throughout the Liberal Party.

If we recall, there was Raj Grewal, a former MP, who was charged with fraud; Joe Peschisolido, a former Liberal MP, whose company was involved in and charged with a money laundering scam; Hunter Tootoo and Darshan Singh Kang, who were charged with sexual misconduct; the current Minister of Public Safety, in the clam scam, who gave a $25-million clam quota to his relative and a company that did not even own a boat, which was terrible; and the Minister of Transport, who gave money to her husband's company. It is a total conflict of interest.

The government is showing that it has this pattern of behaviour, and whenever the Liberals are caught, they do the obvious: They delay and refuse to release documents, or they release them all redacted. That needs to stop. Canadians have a right to know what happened to the $400 million and to get to the bottom of it.

The good news is that, while we continue to debate the parliamentary privilege part of this situation, no government bills can come forward. Therefore, the awful legislation the Liberals are trying to bring forward is not going to happen. For example, Bill C-63, which would put someone in jail for life if the government thought they might commit a hate crime in the future, is not going to come forward, nor is Bill C-71, which would take the children of Canadian citizens who live abroad, children who have never lived in Canada, and grant them Canadian citizenship. When they turned 18, they would be able to vote and decide, on their honour, where they wanted their vote to count. That is a new level of foreign interference, so I am happy that one is not coming forward.

Of course, we will also not see the bill that changes the date of the election so that MPs who lose their seat still get their pension. That will not be coming forward either. Nevertheless, it is an absolute disgrace to Canadians that money, $400 million, has basically been given out with 186 conflicts of interest. They act as though there is nothing to see here. It is totally unacceptable, and if the government wants to get back to work, the Liberals should do the right thing. They should produce the unredacted documents as the Speaker has requested.

Mr. Speaker, is there quorum?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise and speak in the House, but I am disappointed that we are on week three of speaking about parliamentary privilege.

Those who are watching at home want to know why we are here and how we got here. It all started with Sustainable Development Technology Canada. This is a fund that was designed to support initiatives for green technology, emissions reduction and things like that. The fund started in 2001, and under Liberal and Conservative governments, it went along just fine until this corrupt bunch of Liberals got involved.

Cabinet ministers decided to give a billion dollars to the fund. They picked their friends to be on the committee to decide who was going to get the money, and the friends gave the money to their own businesses. The Auditor General found 186 conflicts of interest; 80% of the projects had conflicts of interest, and there was a whistle-blower within the Sustainable Development Technology Canada department who said that there was criminal activity involved.

As such, as parliamentarians, we wanted to look into the matter. The documents related to this fund were requested in June, but the government, the Liberals, did what they normally do: They delayed. Then, when they sent the documents, they blacked out all the useful parts. The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle stood up on a question of privilege because it is our right, as parliamentarians, to get whatever documents we need to do our good work. The Speaker absolutely correctly ruled that, yes, this was a violation of our privilege, and he ordered the Liberals to deliver the unredacted documents so that we can turn them over to the RCMP.

We have been waiting for three weeks and debating this matter of privilege every day. No documents have been delivered. That is why we are here.

I am going to spend my time today talking and pushing back against the Liberals' very weak arguments about why they cannot bring the documents forward. I will start with one of the myths they are spreading. They say that they cannot produce the papers, because giving them to the RCMP would violate the charter rights of Canadians. This is not true at all. The police and the RCMP get tips all the time: They get tips from Crime Stoppers, as well as phone calls and documents alleging criminal activity.

The law says that the RCMP must do due diligence by looking at the evidence presented. If they find evidence of criminality, then they have to go to the court and order those documents through the court in order for them to be used at a trial. That is the law, so it is ridiculous to suggest that the government cannot produce the papers for that reason.

The other thing I would say is that it is very hypocritical of the Liberals to say that they are concerned about the charter rights of Canadians. They have violated nearly every charter right. They are what their record says they are, so let us look at their record.

First, let us start with freedom of expression. There is Bill C-11, the censorship bill, by which the government-appointed CRTC can take down an individual's content if it finds the content objectionable. Let us also talk about Bill C-63, which is the online harms bill. It would put someone in jail for life if the government thought that person might commit a hate crime in the future. That is utterly chill on freedom of expression.

Let us talk about freedom of religion. There are people crying “death to Jews” from coast to coast to coast. The government has done nothing to stem the flow of vandalism and harassment that is happening at synagogues and at Jewish businesses in our country. The Hindus are being persecuted by the Khalistanis; again, the government has done nothing. There are 112 Christian churches that have burned. The government has said nothing. Therefore, there is no protection for freedom of religion from the Liberal government.

If we want to go down the list of other freedoms, let us talk about mobility rights. Every Canadian has the right to freely enter and leave Canada. That is in the Charter of Rights. However, during the pandemic, Liberals trapped four million people in the country for over two years, even after it was medically proven that people who were vaccinated could get and transmit COVID in the same way as the unvaccinated. Therefore, 90% of vaccinated people were allowed to go wherever they wanted, to leave and enter Canada. However, 10% of people, who were not a higher risk, were trapped in the country. This separated them from their families and caused a lot of trauma.

Then we get to the Emergencies Act, which was ruled by the courts to be illegal. I am not sure why there were no consequences for that. If I were convicted of something, I could appeal, but I would have to appeal from prison; therefore, I am not sure why there has been no action on that. However, Liberals froze people's bank accounts. That is unlawful search and seizure, so they violated another charter right.

When it comes to freedom from discrimination, people are not supposed to discriminate against anybody based on race, religion, age, etc., but we have seen that the Liberals do. The Canada summer jobs program discriminated against people of faith who would not sign the attestation. Moreover, the Liberals discriminated based on age when they decided to give an increase in OAS to people over 75, but not those between 65 and 74.

Business of the House

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, as my colleague is well aware, we are complying with the ruling of the Speaker of the House, which indicated that this matter must be referred to committee. As the Speaker said, the Conservatives are obstructing their own obstruction. I cannot help but think that that is because they do not want to know the truth. Doing what they are asking would be an abuse of the House's power. We will always stand up for Canadians' rights and freedoms.

I also want to illustrate the fact that his question is totally fake, much like the tacky slogans Conservatives hide behind because they have no actual ideas or policies for the country. That is probably why they continue to filibuster their own motion: to distract Canadians from the fact that they are nothing more than an empty shell. It must be pretty embarrassing for Conservative MPs, having to filibuster their own motion day after day to protect their leader from any real accountability. It must also be kind of embarrassing for Conservative MPs to sit in a caucus with a leader who refuses to get a security clearance, because he clearly has something to hide. It is expected of a leader of a political party to do this, but beyond his little performances in the House, their leader does very little that comes close to leadership.

Despite the games being played by the Conservatives, on this side of the House, we are going to continue to work hard for Canadians. When the House does get back to debating legislation, the priorities will be Bill C-71 on citizenship, Bill C-66 on military justice, Bill C-63 on online harms and the ways and means motion related to capital gains.

Online Harm

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, online harm to children is a very important issue for our government. Today, I have the honour of presenting a petition signed by many people from the riding of Sherbrooke. Given the growing number of reports of Canadian children being exposed to online sextortion and other serious harm, the petitioners are calling on the House of Commons to continue working on Bill C-63 and to pass it as quickly as possible. I thank the people of Sherbrooke for their commitment to this important issue.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on the Friday before Thanksgiving, I talked about the culture of secrecy and the corruption in the form of conflicts of interest that was obvious right from the very beginning of the Liberal government. In the time I have left, I will talk about the situation we are in right now.

Parliament is paralyzed because the government has refused an order for the production of documents, which was passed by the House some time ago. That is why we are here. The Conservatives are not interested in simply letting debate on this motion collapse so the House can fob this off to a parliamentary committee, where the government and its NDP partners can buy more time, maybe delay a final report or maybe avoid a further vote finding the government once again in contempt of Parliament. The Conservatives want the government to comply with the order. The Conservatives want the government to produce the documents that the House voted for.

The Liberals are stuck in the old debate, which the House has already settled. That debate was whether the House should order that documents be turned over to the RCMP, but that ship has sailed. That question is academic. The House has already voted on that question. The House voted to produce documents, so the government's refusal to do so now is a contempt of Parliament. You, Mr. Speaker, have ruled that this refusal is prima facie evidence of contempt of Parliament, which is why this question is being debated to the exclusion of all business of the House.

I would like to address the two main points the government House Leader and her parliamentary secretary keep making over and over again during debate in the House, to the media outside the House and during question period.

First, government members have repeatedly claimed that the government's contempt for Parliament is somehow justified because the order for the production of documents threatens the charter rights of accused persons and prosecutorial independence, while of course ignoring that it is violating section 3 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is the guarantor of democracy. This argument is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard in the House of Commons, and in nine years in the House, I have heard some pretty dumb things come from the government. Before addressing that argument, it has to be pointed out that Vice-Admiral Mark Norman and Jody Wilson-Raybould might have something to say about the government's track record on prosecutorial independence, but I do not have time to go into the old scandals. I will deal with the argument that government members have made.

Ordering the production of documents that belong to the Crown in order to give them to another agency of the Crown, the RCMP, has nothing to do with directing prosecutions. Saying so is just plain dumb. Does the order the House has voted for say that the House instructs the RCMP to arrest a particular Liberal insider who took the public's money and gave it to themselves? No, the order does not say that. Does the order direct Crown prosecution services to prosecute somebody in particular, one of the Liberal insiders who, again, took the public's money and voted to give it to themselves? No, it does not direct anybody to do any such thing.

There is nothing in this production order that compels anyone to do anything besides release the documents and provide them to members of the RCMP so they can have evidence that may be potentially relevant to a case that they acknowledge they are already investigating. That is all this order does. It does not say anything about directing law enforcement or Crown prosecutors to do anything, so this bizarre charter argument is complete and total nonsense.

The vigour and enthusiasm with which the government House Leader and her parliamentary secretary advance this argument can only be explained by blind faith in insipid talking points or by functional civic illiteracy. The House of Commons is the embodiment of Canadian democracy, Canada's grand inquisitive body that, on behalf of the people of Canada, who elect members, holds the executive branch, the most powerful people in Canada, to account. It is the will of elected members of Parliament, the will of Canadians, that must be respected.

The second main argument that I have heard from the government, and I am now starting to hear it creep into the other opposition parties propping up the government, is that continuing debate on this motion when all parties have said they will support it is paralyzing the House and preventing it from moving on to other business. However, this argument is a bit too clever. It is victim blaming and it is gaslighting. The Liberals are trying to say of elected members of Parliament that it is their fault for debating the government's corruption, and not the government's fault for refusing an order of the House. When they say this, they are missing the point altogether. Instead of studying contempt of Parliament at a parliamentary committee, the government could end its contempt of Parliament by releasing the documents. It could solve the problem rather than study the problem, and that is why we will continue to debate this motion until the documents are released.

As for the other business of the House, I have no interest in moving on from dealing with this corruption just so the government can introduce more bills and laws that are going to harm Canadians. I am not interested in allowing the government to get over the debate so it can introduce the long-anticipated ways and means motions on a capital gains tax increase that will punish thousands of small business owners in my riding, with few companies receiving the exemption being carved out for other Canadians. I am not interested in that.

I do not want to give the Liberals a chance to increase taxes on Canadians, to further sap the productivity of Canada and to further decrease per capita GDP, as we have observed under the Liberals. I am not interested in the rest of their agenda either. For example, a bill they may want to debate, Bill C-63, would create a new, big bureaucracy without doing anything to address online harms, and would give them a new group of insiders they could appoint to that board.

The only reservation I have about the time that has gone into this debate is that there is another urgent matter. We need to address the other contempt problem we have with the government, wherein the minister from Edmonton was engaging in private business while a minister of the Crown. The evidence could not be more clear on that. His business associate, who was involved in, among other things, shady pandemic profiteering, claimed that there was some other guy named “Randy”, who we are supposed to believe is not the Minister of Employment. We need to get to the bottom of that as well.

There is another solution available: The government, if it thinks that Parliament is paralyzed, that we have other business we need to get to and that Parliament has become dysfunctional, has a remedy. The Liberals could call an election immediately. That is the solution. When Parliament is paralyzed, if they think Parliament is not functioning, they can call an election. That is the beauty of the parliamentary system. The government always has recourse directly to the voters of Canada.

If the Liberals really think the opposition is irresponsible, that other things are more important, that critical parliamentary business is being stymied and that Canadians are on their side with the refusal to comply with an order of elected members of Parliament, they can call an election and let the people of Canada decide.

Business of the House

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, here we are again. We will remember, at this time last week, I stood in this place and listed the following business for the upcoming week: Bill C-71, on citizenship; Bill C-66, on military justice; Bill C-63, on online harms; and the ways and means motion related to capital gains. I am sorry to say that all we saw this week was more Conservative procedural games. I can only imagine that this is because they do not want to debate this important legislation as they are opposed to it for Canadians. Again, for a second week in a row, they have offered nothing constructive and have instead focused on bringing dysfunction to the chamber.

As I have said many time, the government is supportive of the Speaker's ruling and of the Conservative motion, actually, to refer the privilege matter to the Standing Committee on Procedures and House Affairs. Why can they not take yes for an answer?

The Conservatives are effectively spinning their own obstruction because they do not want this matter to be referred to committee. The funniest part about it is that they not only amended their own motion, but also, today, amended their own amendment. They are trying really hard to avoid this going to committee for further study. Perhaps that is because they will hear expert after expert talking about the egregious abuse of power being displayed by the official opposition, their interference in police work, their obstruction of police investigation and the fact that this shows complete disregard for democracy and the rights of Canadian citizens.

They clearly do not want to debate government legislation. All they want to do is serve themselves and their own partisan interests. We will continue to be here to work for Canadians.

Let me take this opportunity, as I know this weekend Canadian families will be together giving thanks for what they have, to wish all members in the House, as well as all Canadians, a very happy Thanksgiving.

Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics

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

Madam Speaker, the government has failed on the fronts that my colleague mentioned in two ways: action and omission. On action, the government has censored Canadians through Bill C-11, which has had a massive effect on YouTube creators, censoring who gets seen and who does not. Bill C-18 has resulted in a news ban for online media platforms, so Canadians cannot get the news. It has also put many newsrooms out of work, so now the government cannot be held to account. Now the government is proposing Bill C-63, which will lead to a kangaroo court, wherein any Canadian could be dragged through with vexatious complaints based on their political opinions.

As well, through omission, by not putting limits on facial recognition software, the government can overreach and use Canadians' biometric data without any limitation. All of that leads to a police state, a censorship state, and something that every Canadian, regardless of political stripe, should be absolutely opposing with every fibre of their being.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Madam Speaker, we need to get back to who is watching the watchers. What is going on with the instructional handbook of Nineteen Eighty-Four? It is bizarre what is happening with this regime, but we have seen this before. Failing regimes during their dying days always reach for the power of the state, the fist of the government to crush opposition. I think there are some similarities with what the government is doing right now with censorship in Bill C-63 and all the censorship bills the government is trying to use to control our society.

I would like to hear my colleague's comments on that. Is this a failure of the government to react to this report, which clearly spells out some recommendations?

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

Madam Speaker, it was former prime minister Harper's government that introduced legislation to stop revenge porn. That was the first law that passed in the House of Commons in response to many terrible incidents. That was a Conservative bill that was passed. Bill C-63 does not do that.

The bill that would do what the member opposite was talking about is a bill that I wrote, Bill C-412. My bill, Bill C-412, would protect people from the non-consensual distribution of intimate images created by artificial intelligence. It includes a digital restraining order for women who are being stalked by people online and a regulated duty of care for how online operators must treat children. We would do all of that without a $200-million bureaucracy, which C-63 proposes, and without a massive impingement on Canadian speech through the reiteration of section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

We in opposition did what the government should have done a long time ago. I am very proud of that. I am proud of my caucus colleagues. It is more of what Canadians can have, with the hope that they can look forward to when the Conservatives form government after the next election.

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

Madam Speaker, we have just seen a demonstration of what Stephen Harper did, which was absolutely nothing for modernization whatsoever. In fact, it is a continuation of that because the Conservatives still do not want anything to do with it. That is the reason why they do not even advance the legislation.

The member was just critical of Bill C-63. In essence, Bill C-63 says that, if someone's partner or ex puts inappropriate pictures onto the Internet without their consent, that is wrong. They should not be able to do that.

The Conservative Party says, “Who cares?” It is not even going to let Bill C-63 be debated to get it to the end of second reading. It will never make it to committee if it is left up to the Conservative Party. They are stonewalling it. They are taking a Stephen Harper approach to the issue, and that is to do nothing but complain.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup.

What we are doing here today is something called a concurrence debate. It relates to a report that was actually submitted to the House in October 2022, two years ago, on the topic of facial recognition software. This might seem like a very niche topic, but it is really not. Facial recognition software has become pervasive in use, especially here in Canada, and the report provided a set of recommendations on safeguards that could be used to protect Canadians' privacy and their data, as well as to prevent negative social impacts such as the use of facial recognition software to do things like racially profile people from marginalized groups.

The report had some pretty clear recommendations. It was issued in October 2022, and the government abjectly has failed. It has let two years go by without implementing a single one of the recommendations to protect the health, safety and privacy of Canadians. I want to talk about what the government is going to say that it did in response to the report, and then debunk it.

The government tabled a bill, Bill C-27, which has two components. It has some content with regard to privacy and some content with regard to artificial intelligence. The problem with the bill is that virtually every type of civil society group, as well as academics and businesses, has panned both components of the bill for a variety of reasons. Many members of the House have asked for the bill to be split so that the two very disparate topics could be studied separately. The government has refused to do that. Most importantly, the bill contains absolutely nothing on facial recognition, absolutely nothing that materially addresses the recommendations in the report.

That is why when the Liberals stand up and talk about this, they have to dance around the issue. My colleague from the NDP rightly asked how many of the recommendations had been put in place. The answer is zero.

I am going to outline what the key failures of the bill are and then what the impacts of that are on Canadians. This is not necessarily a front-burner issue, but I think it was really important that the report was brought forward today, because it is something Canadians should be concerned about.

There are problems with unregulated use of facial recognition. I know this can sound really technical for some people, but I have to explain how pervasive it is. If someone were to walk into a shopping centre today, there is absolutely nothing stopping that shopping centre from using high-definition cameras to capture their every move, capture their biometric data, attach it to other profiles that the person might have with other companies and then use that information to make a profile on them about what they can afford and how they could be targeted for advertising. In really bad cases, they could be targeted for negative security experiences.

This is a very pervasive technology. Basically, anywhere there is a camera, facial recognition software can be and is likely being used. It is being used not just by the private sector; it is also being used by governments, and there are almost no limits on what the Liberal government can do with facial recognition software in Canada today. That is highly problematic for several reasons.

First of all, it is a massive invasion of Canadians' privacy; many times, they do not even know it is happening. That is because of the lack of regulation. The failure of the government to address the recommendations and put regulations into Bill C-27 means that Canadians' privacy is at risk. They do not have the ability to consent to when and how facial recognition software can apply to them. The second thing is that this opens them up to big-time data misuse.

As I said in the shopping centre example, there is really nothing preventing a shopping centre from selling biometric data and putting together a broader profile on somebody to be used for any purpose, without that person's ability to reject it on moral grounds. Under the fundamentals of privacy in Canada, we should have the right to reject it. I would almost argue that it is a human right.

The other problem is that it can lead to discrimination and bias. Many studies have shown that facial recognition software actually treats people of colour differently, for a wide variety of reasons. Of course that is going to lead to discrimination and bias in how it is being used. There should be restrictions on that to maintain Canada's pluralism, to ensure equality of opportunity and to ensure that people of colour are not discriminated against because of a lack of regulation. To reiterate, none of these things are in Bill C-27.

The unregulated use of facial recognition software, because the government failed to regulate it in Bill C-27, can also lead to suppression of speech. Let us say that a government wanted to use facial recognition software to monitor people on the street. There would then be, within different government departments, some sort of profiles on who people are, what they do or what their political beliefs are. If government officials see them and maybe a few of their friends coming from different areas and walking to a gathering spot, that could, in theory, be used to disrupt somebody's right to protest. There are absolutely no restrictions on that type of use by government in Bill C-27.

We can also see how facial recognition could be used by the government for extensive overreach. Many members of this place will talk about wrongful convictions with respect to facial recognition software. There have been cases where facial recognition software was used to lead toward an arrest or a warrant. Because there are not clearly defined limits or burdens of proof for the use of the technology, it can lead to wrongful arrests and convictions as well.

It leads to a loss of anonymity. I think we have the right to be anonymous, certainly in this country, but that right has been breached without even any sort of debate in this place, because the government has failed to put the regulations into Bill C-27.

Frankly, the lack of regulations, particularly on government use of facial recognition technology, also means that there is a lack of our ability as legislators to hold the government to account on whether or not it is overreaching. Because we do not have the requirement in law for governments to be transparent about how they are using facial recognition software, we cannot in this place say whether there has been an overreach or not. It is very difficult to get that information.

To be clear, Bill C-27 has been panned at committee by civil liberties groups and civil society groups because of three things: It fails to define “biometric function” as sensitive data, fails to provide clear restrictions on when and how businesses and government can use facial recognition technology, and fails to provide adequate safeguards for individuals, especially regarding consent and the potential for discriminatory outcomes. The bill is a failure. It should have long been split, as has been the request of multiple parties of this place.

Furthermore, the reality is that we have not had the debate in the House of Commons on what the guidelines should be for facial recognition technology. What the government has proposed to do in Bill C-27 is to take that out of this place, this vital debate, and put it in the hands of some Liberal-controlled regulator to be determined behind closed doors, with big tech companies, not us, setting the boundaries on that. That is wrong.

I want to talk about what the government has done. First of all, it has put unfettered use of facial recognition software out into the public. It has failed to define it in Bill C-27. Then it went one step further. Bill C-63, the government's massive draconian censorship bill, would go one step further in putting a chill on Canadian speech. It is another layer of Canada's loss of privacy, Canada's loss of speech and Canadians' loss of rights.

When the government stands up and talks about Bill C-63, the draconian censorship bill, as somehow being a response to facial recognition technology, this is not only laughable; it should strike fear into the heart of every Canadian. All of these factors combine to really put a chill on Canadians' privacy, their right to assembly, their right to freedom of speech and their right to live their life without government intrusion or the intrusion of merchants who might be using their biometric data to sell it to other companies.

It is just insane that Canada has not acted on this. We know that the Liberal government has not acted on it because it is in chaos right now. It has so many scandals, spending crises and ethical breakdowns. However, the one thing it has been focused on is censorship. That is because it does not want Canadians to hold it to account.

I am very glad that the report is being concurred in in the House. I find it an abject failure of the Liberal government that it has not acted on the recommendations, which, frankly, are non-partisan and should have been put into law a long time ago.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I suspect there is no one in the chamber who has read all the reports. There are literally pages and pages of concurrence reports, hundreds of reports. There are actually more reports than there are sitting days left.

The issue is important, as are other issues raised through concurrence reports. There is no doubt they are important, but they are never important enough to raise on opposition days. The issues are raised only on government business days, which seems to be a way to prevent us from being able to talk about, for example, Bill C-63, the online harms act, which would advance something our constituents want.

My Conservative friends specifically, instead of playing party politics and trying to serve themselves, should be thinking about serving Canadians by dealing with the legislative agenda and allowing for it to move forward.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question and especially that it is coming from a Conservative member.

He is asking us what thoughts we have in regard to legislation. I made reference in my comments to Bill C-63, the online harms act. I made reference to Bill C-26, which deals with cybersecurity. I made reference to Bill C-27, which deals with updating a framework so that we have regulations that address many aspects of the report.

The biggest barrier is not a lack of ideas or legislation. The biggest barrier is, in fact, the Conservative Party of Canada, which continues to prevent legislation from ultimately becoming law. On the one hand, the Conservatives talk about the importance of privacy for Canadians and the importance of cyber-related issues, but when it comes time to advance legislation, they are found wanting. If my colleague believes that we should have legislation, I would encourage him to allow legislation to get through.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak on an issue that I know is very important to all Canadians. I wanted to make note of a couple of things before I really get under way. When we think of the Internet, I think that we need to put it into the perspective of how things have changed over time in a very significant way. I would suggest that applies more to the industry of technological changes related to the Internet and computers: it is virtually second to none, and it is something we all need to be much aware of. It is an issue our constituents are very concerned with. I think, at the end of the day, we need to recognize just how much things have changed and the importance of governments to show that not only do they understand the issue, but they also have taken tangible actions in order to address the many different concerns out there.

I will start off by saying there are a number of pieces of legislation that are all related to that technological change. If we canvass Canadians, we will find that there is a wide spectrum of ways they use the internet. There are many benefits to it, and there are many drawbacks.

The legislative agenda that we have put forward and advanced over the last number of years deals with both sides: How important it is to have a framework that enables us to protect, for example, the marketplace; and how important it is that we have laws that protect the victims of the abuse that takes place over the Internet.

I would like to cite three pieces of legislation and where they are at today. It is not necessarily because of the government's will to constantly push opposition members in trying to get through the legislation, but I believe that these are the types of legislation that a vast majority of Canadians would ultimately support. I can make reference to the issue of protection, for example. I think there have been four concurrence reports from the Conservative Party, this is either the second or third from the Bloc and I know the New Democrats have done a concurrence report. This is all during government business. Then we have had the issue of the matters of privilege. No Conservative is standing up saying, “Why are we doing these concurrence reports when we should be dealing with the privilege?” This is because the privilege is actually being used as a tool to prevent the discussion of legislation.

Why is that important to highlight right now? It is because one of the pieces of legislation we have been trying to push out of second reading is Bill C-63, the online harms act. That is a piece of legislation that ultimately protects individuals and our communities from inappropriate behaviour taking place on the Internet and creating victims. These are the types of things to which I question, what role does government have? This particular report raises a number of concerns on the impacts of AI and facial recognition. Imagine all the images on the Internet today that Canadians do not want on the Internet.

I am thinking of a breakup where one spouse is, without the consent of the ex, putting inappropriate pictures on the Internet. Bill C-63 is legislation that addresses an issue of that nature, yet it continues to be frustrated in terms of getting through the House of Commons on second reading. However, I know that a majority of members of Parliament who are sitting in the House of Commons actually support Bill C-63.

We have Bill C-26, which deals with the important issue of cybersecurity. When we think of cybersecurity, we can imagine the data banks out there collecting information and how critical that information is. We are defending and supporting Canadians, where we can, through issues related to privacy and the potential leak of data bank information.

There was a time when a data bank was paper-driven, and the shredders might have had good business at the time. I remember going into an embassy where I saw containers full of correspondence. Containers are disappearing as more and more things are becoming digital, and that applies in many different forms. In literally seconds, millions of data points can actually be lost and ultimately acquired by someone who might have malicious intent. However, we are still waiting for Bill C-26 to ultimately get that royal assent, not to mention Bill C-27.

Bill C-27 has a great deal to do with what we are talking about today. I think members need to fully understand, when we look at how important this issue is, that the last time we actually had a modernization of the acts that are in question, and I am referring to Bill C-27, was back in 2000, over 20 years ago, when iPhones did not exist. Can members imagine a time where iPhones did not exist? I can, and it really was not all that long ago.

When I was first elected, when I turned on the computer, the first thing I heard was a dial tone, a ding-dong, and then I was logged onto the Internet type of thing, and it took quite a while to get that connection. People used five-and-a-half-inch floppy disks. However, from 1995 to 2001, we really started to see an explosion of Internet advancement and technology, and it continues today.

Let us think about where the government has put its investments. It is not only toward protecting Canadians, but toward ensuring that communities have access to the Internet because of how critical it is to all of us.

We can look at one of the largest expenditures in my own province of Manitoba, which expanded broadband Internet into rural communities. It is being financed through the Canada Infrastructure Bank. Ironically, it is the same Canada Infrastructure Bank that the Conservatives say is doing nothing and has no projects. The leader of the Conservative Party has said he is going to get rid of the Infrastructure Bank. However, in Manitoba, we have seen the Internet expand through the Canada Infrastructure Bank.

The Internet is an absolutely essential service today. Back in the late eighties and going into the nineties, some might have said it was an option. Today, it is not an option. The year 2000 was the last time the act was updated. For almost a decade, Stephen Harper chose to do absolutely nothing to protect individuals' identifications from being consumed through the Internet.

This government, for a number of years, has been looking at how we can modernize the protection of Canadians through the Internet and how we can maximize the benefits of the Internet, while minimizing harms to society. Those are the types of initiatives the Government of Canada has been taking to show, in a very real and tangible way, whether with legislative or budgetary measures, that it understands the technology. We are going to continue not only to be there but also to invest in it. It is one of the reasons that Canada virtually leads the rest of the world in many areas, especially on AI and facial recognition. It is because we understand, looking forward, the role that they are going to play.

That is why it is so important to bring forward legislation and, ultimately, look across the way. In a minority situation, we need a sense of co-operation coming from all opposition parties. It does not take a majority of members to prevent things from happening in the House. All it takes is one political party. Any political entity in the House that has 13 or 14 members can cause a great deal of frustration, even though a majority inside the House might want to see actions taken. In the last federal election, a minority government was elected, but that does not take responsibility away from all political parties to take the actions necessary to support what is in the best interests of Canadians.

That is why I am standing up to speak to the report, which had a lot of work. I was not at the committee, but I can assure everyone that a great deal of effort would have been put into coming up with the report.

Having read some of the comments provided by the minister's office in response to the report, obviously the government has taken the report very seriously. If members want to get an appreciation for the content of the report, I would encourage them to take a look at it. They should also look at the response the government has provided to the report. I suspect that if they were to take a look at the response, they would find that once again, much as in the many comments I have put on the record thus far, we have a government that understands the issue and the report and has taken action, not only today but previously, to deal with the concerns being raised.

All we need to do is take a look at Bill C-27. In his response, even the minister made reference to Bill C-27. If members are genuinely concerned about the report, they should be sympathetic to at least allowing Bill C-27 to get out of committee. Why would that not happen? I can assure members, contrary to what the member across the way said, that as a government, we are constantly listening to Canadians. That is why we will find within our measures, whether they are legislative or budget measures, the thoughts and ideas of the people of Canada being reflected.

The Speaker's constituents, my constituents and all of our constituents are genuinely concerned about what is happening on the Internet today. To amplify that fact and the need for change, I quickly made reference to the year 2000, when we last had legislation. We had a big gap when absolutely nothing was done. I call that the Stephen Harper era. Then we had a government replace that era and it immediately started to work with Canadians to get a better understanding of the types of legislation and regulations that are necessary.

The best example that I can come up with, because of the explosion of iPhones out there today, is the issue of Facebook and how many people participate in Facebook. How many people own an iPad or iPhone or are on Facebook, Instagram or the many other social media, which did not exist in 2000? None of them existed. If that is the case, as I stated, I think a good question to pose is why there is resistance to supporting what Canadians want to see. Why would anyone oppose the framework legislation that we are bringing forward that would protect the interests of Canadians?

As I said, it is not like the Internet is an option nowadays. Today, it is an essential service. People will go to the Internet for a wide spectrum of reasons, whether it is streaming a favourite show from the past or something more recent, or looking at issues related to health conditions. I am always amazed at how the general knowledge of the population continues to grow on health-related issues.

That area has great potential, and it will incorporate AI and facial recognition. Non-profit and private organizations and even governments will use the Internet as a tool to deliver health care services and provide health care advice. Many people are taking that up and looking into it. That is one of the reasons that people will be living longer lives in the future. It is endless. That is—

Transport, Infrastructure and Communities

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House once again to speak to the Bloc Québécois motion on shoreline erosion. I will be splitting my time with the member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry.

I would like to speak to the transportation committee study for a bit and talk about the government's response to it. Then I will share some of the factors that are affecting shoreline erosion and the urgency of the situation in my own riding. As always, I will come with helpful solutions that might be a good path forward.

First, the study identifies that the speed of vehicles is a factor, which is true. My riding of Sarnia—Lambton certainly experienced that, when the Coast Guard sped through the channel, broke the ice and broke the whole Sombra ferry. Instead of fixing it for $2 million, the government, the member at the time, who is now in charge of public safety but was in charge of DFO, decided not to fix it. Instead it was decided to lose $4 million a year of CBSA revenue, lose a border crossing and eventually lose $6 million in a lawsuit over the whole thing. Speed is an issue and it needs to be brought down. Not everyone complies with the speed.

With the other factors, the government's response was delayed by 18 months. This is typical of the government. It does not really know how to do the business of government well. In the response, it is talking a lot about research and studies that need to be done. However, when the House is on fire, that is not the time to begin research on the accelerating factors in burning of different materials. That would be the time to take urgent action to put the fire out. That is where we are.

All day long we have heard members from different ridings talk about the urgency of shoreline erosion in their areas, and the government has been very deaf on this point. I hear all the time that it is climate change. When we talk about climate change, we need to understand what part of that is playing into shoreline erosion. From my engineering background, water levels increasing and decreasing makes a big difference in shoreline erosion.

In design engineering principles, we look at the 100-year cycle of water levels in places like the St. Clair River and the St. Lawrence Seaway. We look at 100-year storms. The problem is now we are seeing 100-year storms every couple of weeks, so that has greatly exacerbated the problem. In addition to that, we are not able to deal with it.

In the Great Lakes area, we have the infrastructure in place in Niagara that is supposed to maintain the water levels in the Great Lakes. However, that infrastructure only has the capacity of changing the level by one inch per month. With the inches and inches of rainwater that we are seeing and the fluctuations there, we just do not simply have the infrastructure to address water levels, and that is making the situation worse.

In addition to that, there is not always good engineering design put in place. In my riding of Sarnia—Lambton, there is a stretch of beach between Canatara Park and Brights Grove. It is all very homogeneous. In the stretch from Canatara Park to the midpoint at Murphy, the shoreline protection has been properly engineered. The groins are 100 feet apart. They are long enough, tall enough and made of adequate materials, so there is no shoreline erosion in evidence there. However, what has happened on the next stretch of beach is that people, as they built their property, decided to put something in place that was not properly engineered. They have huge issues to the point that in Brights Grove the road was falling down right next to Lake Huron. They had to close it and do an emergency repair.

Since 2015, when I was elected, I have been trying to negotiate to get the $150 million that is needed in Sarnia—Lambton to address its issues. With three levels of government, the revolving door of ministers who have handled infrastructure and the lack of funding that somebody could actually apply for and get funding for shoreline erosion, the government has been all talk and no action on this file.

There are issues downriver in my riding, in St. Clair township, with a lot of low-level housing getting flooded. It is not just a St. Clair township thing. We see it in Gatineau every year with the Gatineau floods. There is a huge issue there.

It is not that the solutions are unknown. We know how to put in aggregate rock. We know what the better things are to put in some areas versus others and what to do for people, but we need to have a holistic solution. In one area in my riding, which is a rather wealthy area, landowners are losing 30 feet to 50 feet of their land every year from shoreline erosion. Owners are spending $50,000 and $100,000 apiece to put in their own seawall, but then that passes the problem down to the next neighbour. What is needed is a holistic solution, which could be funded jointly with municipalities, individuals and the federal government. The province has a role to play, but doing nothing and letting this piecemeal thing continue to happen is certainly not a solution.

When it comes to what we ought to do, we oftentimes hear the Liberal government say that it is “seized” with this solution. Again from an engineering perspective, a motor that is seized means it is not moving. That is exactly what we are seeing from the Liberal government, which is that it is not moving and not taking any action. It is not acceptable.

If we look to the solutions that the Liberals want to put in place, they have decided, again, that we need another committee to distribute another fund. I do not know how many times they have to repeat the same behaviour before they recognize that putting a whole bunch of Liberal appointees onto a committee to administer a fund is a disaster.

Let us start with the Infrastructure Bank: $35 billion of infrastructure money was taken from municipalities and put into a committee to administer it. No projects came out the other end, but everybody was getting a great salary. It was a terrible idea.

On the sustainable green fund, the Liberals wanted another committee to distribute the billion dollars in funds. Here we are today not able to do any government business because of the scandalous 186 conflicts of interest, people giving money from the committee to their own companies, as well potentially to the companies of cabinet ministers. It is a disaster.

The suggestion that we should do this is a bad idea. The Liberals are suggesting the same thing for Bill C-63. Instead of addressing the exploitation of children online, which is a serious offence, they want to create a parallel Liberal-appointed committee that would look at these issues. The committee would not have the ability to do anything in terms of criminal consequence, but it would make everybody feel better, and everybody would get better paid. That is not a solution, and I do not recommend it here at all.

This increase in people does not necessarily give us a better result. We have seen a 40% increase in public sector employees, but we do not see a corresponding improvement in response times from CRA or from immigration, from any of these things. In fact, we actually see worse results.

None of the solutions that have been put forward are the right ones. There is urgency, not just in my riding. We heard of other ridings for which this is urgent. I would be remiss if I did not speak up for former MP Bill Casey, who, when he was here, always talked about the linkage between New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. This is critical infrastructure, and it is going to be washed away. This will be a huge issue for all the people living in those regions, and it is not being tackled with the urgency needed.

We need to use the funds we have. We have an infrastructure fund. Could we use it to build things? Could we use it for shoreline erosion? Every time someone applies for one of these funds, it is like the fund is a little boutique, where people need to have this, that or something else. Each riding has its own needs and each riding knows what to do about it. Why do we not take the existing infrastructure money we have and work with the municipalities to address shoreline erosion?